This court disposed of a writ petition concerning the rejection of the petitioner's parole application, observing no error in the impugned order but permitting an afresh application.
Petitioner permitted to file an afresh application for parole after six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
24# $~
| * IN THE HIGH |
COURT OF DE | LHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|---|
| + W.P.(CRL) 1249/ |
2018 | |
| CHANDER MOH | AN SINGH RAW | AT ..... Petitioner |
| Represented by: versus |
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.S.N. Maurya, Advocates. |
|
| STATE & ANR | Represented by: | ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel and Ms. Kamna Vohra, Additional Standing Counsel for State. |
| Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 14.09.2018
directed to be released on parole, however, subject to the guideline that the co-convicts will not be released simultaneously except on special circumstances to be mentioned in the order granting parole.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 ‘vn’
W.P.(CRL) 1249/2018
CHANDER MOHAN SINGH RAW
STATE & ANR
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
