Allowed

Sanjay Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC2 Mar 2017W.P.(CRL)/570/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition seeking release on parole for the petitioner. Directing his release for six weeks to accompany his daughter for her Class 12 board exams, the Court imposed conditions including furnishing a bond, reporting daily, and refraining from contacting witnesses in pending cases.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on parole between 08.03.2017 and 18.04.2017 subject to specified conditions.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~18.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 570/2017

¶4

SANJAY SHARMA

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, SC

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

¶12

¶13

O R D E R 02.03.2017

¶14

The status report has been filed on record and perused.

¶15

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction for his release on parole for a period of six weeks on the ground that he has to accompany his daughter for her 12^th class board examination. The factum with regard to petitioner’s daughter studying in Class 12^th and preparing for the board examination has been verified by the State.

¶16

The application is opposed on the ground that the petitioner has a 19 years’ old son who can accompany his daughter for the aforesaid purpose.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son is unemployed and is busy looking for an employment. Moreover, it is pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner also had to undergo treatment earlier at Institute of

¶18

Allied Health Sciences (IAHS).

¶19

Keeping in view of the aforesaid, the presence of the petitioner, who is the father of the girl child, by her side when she has to undertake her board examination would certainly be desirable. The nominal roll shows that the petitioner is undergoing the sentence of 5 years RI with fine in case FIR No. 437/2009 under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at police station Mandawali. The petitioner has already undergone 3 years 2 months and 22 days incarceration as on 25.02.2017 and also earned remission of 11 months and 10 days. The remaining sentence of the petitioner is only 9 months and 28 days. His jail conduct is found to be satisfactory. He was earlier also released on parole by this Court between 02.12.2015 and 31.12.2015. It is not reported that he has misused the said parole. The petitioner is involved in two other cases but he has been released on bail in both the cases.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid position, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on parole between 08.03.2017 and 18.04.2017. This is further subject to the condition that;

¶21

i) his furnishing personal bond with one surety in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent;

¶22

ii) he shall provide his mobile phone number to the Jail Superintendent at the time of his release, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The same shall not be changed without prior intimation to the Jail Superintendent;

¶23

iii) he shall report at the local police station to mark his attendance on every Monday at 11:00 a.m. during the period of parole;

¶24

iv) he shall duly surrender at the end of the period of parole; and

¶25

v) he shall also not indulge in any criminal activity while on parole. He

¶26

shall not contact the complainant or any other witnesses in respect of other two cases and shall also not try to influence any witness or tamper with evidence.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of.

¶28

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶29

MARCH 02, 2017 sl

Sanjay Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sharma v. State (Govt 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Rana Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Mohit Paul Vs State

Soniya @ Sofiya Anjum & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Raj Pal Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs State (Nct ) of Delhi & Anr.

Gaurav Mukhija & Ors. Vs State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr.

Harjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Om Prakash Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

State Vs Amar & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Amardeep Singh & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Suresh Kumar Khera Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Sudhir Sharma Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.