Muslim v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court at Delhi, in a criminal miscellaneous application, modified a parole order previously issued, substituting a personal bond of ₹10,000/- with one surety for the petitioner instead of the earlier higher amounts, considering his family roots.
What did the court decide?
Modified the parole order to release the petitioner on bond of ₹10,000/- by himself and one surety for a period of four weeks.
What the court decided
66# $~
| * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DE |
LHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|
| + W.P.(CRL) 62/2018 |
|
| MUSLIM Represented by: |
..... Petitioner Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Advocate. |
| versus | |
| STATE | ..... Respondent |
| Represented by: CORAM: |
Mr. R.S. Kundu, Additional Standing Counsel for State with ASI Tulli Ram, PS Badarpur. |
| HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA | GUPTA |
O R D E R % 18.04.2018
Crl.M.A. No. 7085/2018 (modification of order dated 21st March, 2018)
- By this application the petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 21st March, 2018 to the extent imposing the condition of furnishing a personal bond and the surety bond of ₹25,000/- by the petitioner for grant of parole.
- Issue notice.
- Learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State.
- As per the status report placed on record, petitioner’s family comprises of his two sons, who are residing with the family members at H. No. 126, Dharampal Colony, Tajpur Village, Badarpur, New Delhi for the last 35 years.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order imposing conditions of furnishing a personal bond and surety bond for grant of parole can be modified.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Muslim
- 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