Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Raj Bala vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 29 June, 2020

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                                                     via Video-conferencing
$~5
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(CRL) 985/2020 & CRL. M.A. 8338/2020
      RAJ BALA                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. S.K. Gandhi, Adv.

                          versus

      THE STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & ORS. ...... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
                                 State.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                   ORDER

% 29.06.2020 The petitioner, who is the mother of convict Hardeep, who (latter) has been convicted vidé judgment dated 18.05.2017 in case FIR No. 05/2010 registered under sections 302/392/364-A/120-B IPC at PS : South Rohini and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a total fine of Rs.2,10,000/- vidé sentencing order dated 25.05.2017, seeks parole for her son.

2. At the outset, as noticed above, the petitioner in the present case is the mother of the convict ; and the petition has also not been filed in the name of the convict acting through his mother.

3. Be that as it may, Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State appears on advance copy; and submits that the petitioner's plea seeking parole is pending consideration with the jail administration and has not been allowed so far since a co-convict W.P.(CRL) 985/2020 Page 1 of 2 Bipav Biswas is already out on parole ; and as per parole rules, two convicts are ordinarily not granted parole at the same time. Ms. Rao refers to nominal roll dated 29.06.2020 to support this submission, a copy of which has been forwarded via e-mail during the course of hearing.

4. Ms. Rao however submits that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the jail administration to decide the parole application of convict Hardeep in a time-bound manner.

5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction that the parole application pending before the jail administration be considered and decided within a period of 10 days, with liberty to the convict Hardeep to approach this court, if found necessary, in accordance with law.

6. The petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

2. JUNE 29, 2020/uj W.P.(CRL) 985/2020 Page 2 of 2