Shailesh @ Pandit v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Delhi admitted the petitioner to parole for three weeks after noting his conduct and modifications to his sentence.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner admitted to parole for three weeks subject to conditions of personal bond, surrender on expiry, monthly appearance, and providing address/number.
What the court decided
$~21
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 760/2018
- SHAILESH @ PANDIT
..... Petitioner Through Ms. Mallika Parmar, Adv.
versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Mr. Prashant Singh and Ms. Chaitanya Gosain, Advs along with SI Pardeep Singh.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 14.03.2018
The petitioner is seeking parole for the reasons mentioned in the petition. One such reason is that he wants to file a SLP against the dismissal of his appeal which had been decided on 18.05.2015.
On advance notice, learned counsel for the State has put in appearance. It is pointed out that the conduct of the petitioner has not been satisfactory; the punishment meted out to him on 13.06.2017 has been noted in the nominal roll. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had jumped parole on one occasion and had to be rearrested only after a gap of one month. A status report to the said effect has also been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that the address of the petitioner stands verified. This Court notes the rejoinder submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner which is
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for parole given his past conduct including jumping parole previously?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shailesh @ Pandit
- respondent
State
Coram
Indarmeet Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court