Dismissed
Abid v. State
Delhi HCW.P.(CRL)/1560/2018
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The High Court held that since the petitioner had been granted furlough after the rejection of his parole application, there was no ground to modify that rejection order.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
25# $~
¶2
| * | IN THE HIGH | COURT OF DE | LHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|---|---|
| + | W.P.(CRL) 1560/ | 2018 | |
| ABID | Represented by: versus |
..... Petitioner Ms. Ridhima Mandhar, Advocate. |
|
| STATE | ..... Respondent | ||
| Represented by: | Mr. Ashish Negi and Ms. Shikha Mehra, Advocates for |
||
| Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI Rajendra Kumar, New Friends Colony. |
¶3
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
¶4
O R D E R % 18.05.2018
¶5
Crl. M.A. No. 9584/2018 (Exemption)
¶6
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
¶7
W.P.(CRL) 1560/2018
¶8
- Issue notice.
¶9
- Learned proxy counsel for learned Additional Standing Counsel for State accepts notice.
¶10
- By this petition the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to find a suitable match for himself and to re-establish social ties. The petitioner also challenges the communication dated 21st February, 2018 dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking parole on the grounds as noted above.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the_crime_parole_application_should_be_modified_in_favour_of_the_petitioner_vis--a-vis_the_grant_of_furlough_after_rejection_of_parole.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Abid
- respondent
State
Coram
AI extract
Mukta Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court