In a writ petition challenging a parole rejection, the High Court of Delhi observed that the petitioner, who had previously jumped parole after 26 years, had no basis for a fresh grant. The petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed; parole application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~52
ONKAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with SI M.S.Kamal, PS Paharganj
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R D E R
% 09.01.2019
Crl.M.A.No.303/2019
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(Crl.) No.45/2019
By this petition, the petitioner seeks parole as also challenges the communication dated 31st December, 2018 whereby his application seeking grant of parole was rejected by the Government of NCT of Delhi. A perusal of the communication dated 31st December, 2018 reveals that the petitioner who was earlier released on parole on 5th June, 1991 did not surrender and jumped the same and could be re-arrested only on 28th August, 2017 i.e. after more than 26 years.
Considering the reason for rejection, this Court finds no ground to disagree.
Petition is dismissed.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 09, 2019/ mamta
1 issue framed by the court
Whether parole granted earlier and subsequently evaded for over two decades should again be granted.
Onkar Singh
State of NCT of Delhi
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
