Allowed

Tara Chand v. State

Delhi HC8 Nov 2019W.P.(CRL)/3146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi modified the terms of an order granting third spell of furlough to the petitioner, reducing the personal bond and surety requirements based on prior parole history, though the court did not elaborate on specific legal principles or precedents. The decision is concise and procedural in nature, focusing on adjusting bail conditions without detailed reasoning or extensive cita

What did the court decide?

Reduced personal bond from ₹25,000 to ₹10,000; reduced surety requirement to ₹10,000

Tara Chand Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3146/2019

¶4

TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Gautam Khazanchi, Mr Pradyuman Kaistha and Mr Vishnu Menon, Advocates.

¶5

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶7

% 08.11.2019

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 09.10.2019, whereby the petitioner’s request for modification of the terms of furlough was rejected. By an order dated 22.08.2019, the petitioner’s request to be released for a third spell of furlough was granted, subject to the condition of him furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹10,000/- and two sureties of the like amount. The petitioner states that he has been in custody for over seven years and is thus, finding it difficult to arrange two sureties for his release on furlough.

¶9

The petitioner’s request for modification has been denied on two grounds. First, that mulakat had been granted to the petitioner on 02.09.2019, indicating that he is in touch with his family and friends. Second, that he there is a considerable period of incarceration that is yet to

¶10

be served.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that this Court had by an order dated 19.03.2018, granted three weeks parole to the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. He states that there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused the same. 4. Considering the averments made in the petition and considering that the petitioner had been released on furlough on a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- and one surety of the like amount, this Court considers it apposite to modify the terms of the order dated 22.08.2019 granting the third spell of furlough to the petitioner.

¶12

The said order is modified to the extent and it directed that the petitioner would be released on furlough on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No.-2, Tihar. All the conditions other than pertaining to furnishing of a Personal Bond and a surety, as stipulated in the order dated 22.08.2019, shall continue to apply.

¶13

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶14

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶15

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶16

NOVEMBER 08, 2019 MK

Tara Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Mohit Chhabra & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Deepak Kumar Chaudhary Vs State

Shahbaz Khan & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Himanshu Bheda & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Nasir & Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Mrs. Bharti & Anr. Vs the Commisioner of Police & Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State & Anr.

Vijay @ Shanty Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Parveen Vs State

Shahbaz Khan & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Mr. Suresh Kumar Lahiri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bahul Sharma Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

M/S. Fisher Paykel Healthcare India Private Limited & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Jai Parkash & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.