Remanded

Jairam @ Vicky v. State of NCT Delhi

Delhi HC2 Feb 2024W.P.(CRL)/364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking release on parole for two months and quashing of a rejection order. The court dismissed the immediate parole request due to a rule violation regarding the time gap between applications but directed the competent authority to decide the matter within one month.

What did the court decide?

Order remanded parole request to competent authority for decision within one month; writ disposed of on said terms.

Jairam @ Vicky Vs State of NCT Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 364/2024

¶4

JAIRAM @ VICKY ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, APP for State with Insp. Pawan Kumar, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 02.02.2024

¶12

CRL.M.A. 3363/2024 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(CRL.) 364/2024

¶16

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the petitioner on parole for a period of two months and issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the rejection order no. 18/151/2015/HG/3327-28 dated 17.11.2023. 4. Learned ASC for the State points out that when the application for parole was placed before the competent authority the gap between last parole application and the application moved by the petitioner was one

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 04:15:43

¶18

month and hence, at that time parole could not have been granted in terms of Rule 1210 (V), of the Delhi Jail Rules, 2018.

¶19

In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to again place the request for parole before the competent authority, which will be decided within one month as per law, and intimation of the same be given to petitioner.

¶20

The present petition is disposed of, in the above terms.

¶21

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶22

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶23

FEBRUARY 2, 2024/ hs

¶24

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶25

Jairam @ Vicky v. State of NCT Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam @ Vicky v. State of NCT Delhi

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

Shikha Solanki and Anr. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Sh. Rishabh Khandelwal Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Not Delhi and Anr.

Ashu & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Asib Vs the State & Anr.

Naushad Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

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

Nirmala Devi Vs State

Mr Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of NCT Delhi

Hemant Kumar Vs State Govt. of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Rahul Sehgal Vs the State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.

Ajit @ Praveen Kumar Mishra Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Sunil Nayak @ Fundi Vs State N C T of Delhi

Asha Rani Vs State & Anr.