Amit v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court granted parole to the жизни-imprisoned petitioner for four weeks. The applicant, convicted under the IPC and Arms Act, had to care for his wife and children after a previous parole failed due to inability to surrender.
What did the court decide?
Directed release of the petitioner on parole for a period of four weeks upon furnishing a bond and surety.
What the court decided
$~19
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
| + W.P.(CRL) 75 |
6/2018 | |
|---|---|---|
| AMIT | Represented by: | ..... Petitioner Ms. Richa Dhawan, Advocate |
| versus | ||
| STATE | Represented by: | ..... Respondent Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC /GNCTD |
| CORAM: | SI Prabhakaran, PS:Chhawla |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 13.09.2018
By this petition, the petitioner seeks parole on the ground that he has to look after his wife and two children, arrange funds and to re-establish social ties.
On notice being issued, status report has been filed. As per the status report, petitioner’s family comprising of his wife and two children out of her first wedlock, were found residing at B-60, Block-B, Gali No.3, Qutub Vihar, Phase-I, Goyla Dairy, New Delhi, which is a tenanted accommodation.
As per the nominal roll, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/IPC & 25 Arms Act and awarded life imprisonment. Including remission, the appellant has undergone nearly seven years imprisonment. Report of the jail conduct is satisfactory. The
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for parole based on his family responsibilities and the availability of a surety.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Amit
- 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