The petitioner sought parole to file a special leave petition and re-establish social ties. The court noted the petitioner was on furlough during the relevant period and found no ground to interfere with the government's rejection of the parole request, dismissing the petition.
Petition for parole was dismissed.
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.
35# $~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
| RAJESH @ SU | DAMA Represented by: versus |
..... Petitioner Mr. Sumit Choudhary and Mr.Aakanksha Bansal, Advocates (DHCLSC) |
|---|---|---|
| STATE | Represented by: | ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI Manoj Kumar, |
| PS I.P. Estate and SI Ramesh | ||
| Kumar, PS Sultanpuri. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 19.09.2018
in favour of the petitioner.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
‘vn’
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(CRL) 2001/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether parole may be granted to the petitioner to file a special leave petition and re-establish social ties given he was on furlough.
Whether the communication rejecting the parole petition requires judicial interference.
RAJESH @ SUDAMA
STATE
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
