Umesh Giri v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged a parole rejection order. The court observed that the petitioner had not met the minimum one-year imprisonment requirement under parole guidelines. Since nearly a year had elapsed, the petitioner was allowed to apply afresh to the Competent Authority.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner permitted to apply afresh for parole before the Competent Authority.
What the court decided
$~37
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 1719/2018 UMESH GIRI ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Ms.Sudhar Reddy and Ms.Katyayini, Advocates
versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for the State and SI Manoj Kumar, PS IP Estate, Delhi
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
- O R D E R
- % 08.08.2018
- By this petition, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to file Special Leave Petition and re-establish social ties and also challenges the communication dated 9th May, 2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking parole.
- When the petitioner applied for parole, he had not undergone one year imprisonment as per the requirement of para 11.1 of the parole/furlough guidelines resulting in dismissal of the application.
- Since now almost one year has elapsed, petitioner would be at liberty to apply afresh for parole before the Competent Authority.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek fresh parole application after serving nearly one year of imprisonment.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Umesh Giri
- respondent
State
Coram
Mukta Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court