Suraj v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition called the petitioner sought parole to care for his ailing wife and arrange family funds, challenging the rejection of his application. The court observed the petitioner had already been granted furlough and dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection communication.
What did the court decide?
Court declined to set aside the communication dated 29th November 2017 rejecting the parole application.
What the court decided
$~31
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 898/2018 SURAJ ... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate
| versus | ||
|---|---|---|
| STATE | ... Respondent | |
| Represented by: | Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State with Mr.Siddharth |
|
| Sindhu, Advocate | ||
| SI Surya Prakash, PS Swaroop Nagar |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 15.05.2018
By this petition the petitioner seeks parole for a period of three months on the grounds to look after his ailing wife, to arrange funds for the family and to maintain social ties and also challenges the communication dated 29th November, 2017 rejecting his application seeking parole on the grounds noted above.
A perusal of the Nominal Roll reveals that at the time when the application for parole was rejected the petitioner was already on furlough for a period of three weeks w.e.f. 20th November, 2017 and thereafter again he was granted furlough for a period of two weeks w.e.f. 20th February, 2018.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the communication rejecting the petitioner's parole application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Suraj
- 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