Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Hp and Others

Noticeably, such request was cancelled only on the ground that even though the police and other authorities have no objection to the release of the petitioner, but it is the family of the victim which has been objecting to such release of the petitioner on parole.

¶15

When the case came up for consideration on 21.03.2024,

¶16

the Court passed the following order:

¶17

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

2

¶19

“Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 19.03.2024 along with relevant documents. Referring statement of the complainant, who is father of the victim, he has contended that case of the petitioner for parole has rightly been rejected by the concerned authority.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per instructions imparted to him, victim has been married to someone after the incident and she is not residing in the area concerned.

¶21

Respondents are directed to verify the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and furnish report by next date of hearing.

¶22

List on 10.04.2024.”

¶23

The respondents have placed on record instructions dated

¶24

09.04.2024 which go to indicate that the victim has got married in Yamunanagar, Haryana, in October, 2023 and is presently residing in her in-laws’ house. In addition thereto, the statement of the mother of the victim has also been appended wherein she has stated that she has no objection in case parole is granted to the petitioner and he stays in his own house, but he should not come to their house.

¶25

In view of the changed circumstances, we deem it appropriate to quash the rejection order dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) and direct the respondent-authorities to release the petitioner on parole for a period of 28 days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. with further condition that the

¶26

3

¶27

petitioner shall not visit the house of the victim or the house of her in-laws. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. immediately on expiry of 28 days of parole. However, the petitioner’s parole shall be liable to be cancelled in case he breaches any of the conditions of the parole order and/or creates law and order problems, which shall be treated as a negative factor for consideration of his similar prayers in the future.

¶28

The instant petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶30

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶31

10^th April, 2024.

¶32

(krt)

Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Mahajan Vs Union of India and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Roop Lal Vs State of Hp

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajat Goswami Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Hp