Allowed

Jeetu Saini v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC30 May 2017W.P.(CRL)/1595/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants the petitioner, a life convict under Section 302 IPC, parole for four weeks. The decision is based on his satisfactory conduct for the last year and the imminent need to attend his father's scheduled operation for a cortical cyst on 05.06.2017, considering his father requires his presence. The court fixes conditions including surrender upon expiry and not leaving NCT of Delhi.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on parole for four weeks from the date of release, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety.

Jeetu Saini Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 1595/2017 JEETU SAINI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi with Mr. Akash Sharma & Ms. Anshika Sethi, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC SI Nasib Singh, P.S. Vikas Puri

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R % 30.05.2017

¶7

The petitioner had represented before the competent authority for being released on parole as his father has to undergo an operation of cortical cyst but the aforesaid representation of 24.04.2017 has not yet been responded to.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment. The petitioner has by now undergone more than 8 years in custody.

¶9

With reference to nominal roll, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to two occasions when interim bail was granted to him way back in the year 2013 and 2014. Only on one occasion, it has been argued, that when the petitioner was released on parole w.e.f. 25.08.2015 which was to end on 26.09.2015, the petitioner jumped the bonds and was arrested only on 21.12.2015. Because of this his overall

¶10

conduct in jail has been assessed to be unsatisfactory. However, for the last one year, the petitioner has not been done anything and his conduct has been assessed to be satisfactory.

¶11

The status report filed by Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned ASC has been taken on record. The address of the petitioner has been verified. The factum of operation of the father of the petitioner is also found to be true. The operation is scheduled on 05.06.2017.

¶12

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, namely, the satisfactory conduct of the petitioner for the last one year and the requirement of his attending to his father, who is to be operated upon on 05.06.2017, this court is persuaded to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 4 weeks.

¶13

Let the petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

¶14

The petitioner shall be required to follow the conditions enumerated below:-

¶15

a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole.

¶16

b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity.

¶17

c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

¶18

d) He shall furnish his and his surety’s mobile telephone numbers to the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessity he could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained.

¶19

In case, the petitioner flouts any one of the conditions, an application could be moved by the SHO for cancellation of his parole and for taking of coercive steps for securing his attendance.

¶20

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶21

The order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and record.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶24

MAY 30, 2017

¶25

Jeetu Saini v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu Saini v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant Sharma Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nidhi Yadav Vs State (Nct of Delhi) &Ors.

Jatin Tyagi Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Manzoor Khan Vs State

Abdul Basit Bhat & Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Asgar Ansari Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vijender Mann Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Purushottam Goyel Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Dr Amrit Sirnivasan Vs Ms Divya Bhardwaj & Anr.

Satish Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi

Nidhi Yadav Vs State (Nct of Delhi) &Ors.

Devender Singh @ Billoo Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Nazim Vs State