Writ petition seeking eight weeks' parole from Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli. The State reported police verification was complete but not recommended, citing a six-month gap since prior parole. The court directed the competent authority to decide the application by 11 March 2025 and disposed of the petition.
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.
$~6
Through: Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Mathew M. Philip, Mr. Sangeet Sibou and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates for the State with Inspector Kuldeep Singh, PS Kotwali and S/v Yogesh Sharma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 06.03.2025
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 02/07/2025 at 00:41:32
sought. Learned ASC for the State further submitted that there has to be a gap of six months. The last Parole ended on 21.11.2024 and therefore, there is also a technical reason why the Parole be not granted.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
MARCH 6, 2025/RS
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 02/07/2025 at 00:41:32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application for eight weeks' parole should be directed for decision by the competent authority.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yogesh Sharma @ Rahul Sharma
State NCT of Delhi
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
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
