Sabal Singh @ Makhan Singh v. State

ORDER

08.11.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks parole on the ground to renovate his damage house, to look after his minor children and to re-establish social tles. On a notice being issued, a status report has been filed by the State. As per the status report, the Petitioner has five brother; two of whom are residiirg in Delhi, and three Etawah, U.P. The father of the petitioner expired one year ago and it appears that even atthat stage the Petitioner did not avail parole. Further, the Petitioner has two sons; one is living with Pratap the brother of the Petitioner and the other living in an orphan house in Delhi. ;+ t./ In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it to be a fit case to grant parole to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioner be released on parole for a period of four weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one suretlr of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial CourdCMM. .Petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be communicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar Jail. Itww /MUKTA GUPTA,J NOVEMBER 08,2011/dk -poucb C61$ft. BU)nl>--Dvltnnq"t^ + ill*d^A9aflo J ---'/ rvt-tffi"rffiTrtr -%qb'""4--'o / o 2# $- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI + v/.P.(cRL) Lr37 /20rr SABAL SINGH @ IMAKHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate. Petitioner in custody. versus STATE ..... Respondent' Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel with ASI Alauddin, PS GTB Enclave. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER L6.03.2012 Crl. M.A. NO. 2366/2012 By this application the petitioner seeks directions from this Court to the leamed Trial for accepting the surety bond furnished by him. Accoding to the Petitioner his brother appeared before the learned Trial Court for fuinishing the surety bond, however the same were not accepted by the learned Tiial Court in view of the fact that the time period of the parole had expired. A report was called by this court from the learned Trial Courl. As per the learned Trial Court on 1" December,2011 on furnishing of the surety the Court directed the SHO to verif,i the same and repoft on 2nd December, 2011. Later on the same day it has been noted that the applicant seeks to withdraw the bail bond and thus the bail bond was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner has been produced in Court today. According to the Petitioner, since there was a delay in fumishing the surety bond and only one week time of the parole rernained the trial court advised that no useful w.P.(cRL) 1137/2011 Page I of 2 puryose will be served by availing the parole and thus the bail bond was withdrawn. This court had already clarified that the leamed Trial Court has no jurisdiction to curtail the period of parole or interim bail granted by this Court. A detailed order in this regard was passe d in Ravi Prakash @ Ravi vs. state, crl. Appeal 553/2011 dxed I't March,2012 which the Registrar General of this Court was directed to circulate to all the learned Additional sessions Judges and the learned Metropolitan Magistrates. It is highly unfortunate that parole and interirn bails given to the poor people are not being permitted to be availed in view of the unwarranted technicalities sought to be created. 'lhe leamed Trial CouTVCMM is directed to accept the surety bond on being satisfied and permit the petitioner to avail the parole for a period of four weeks. Application stands disposed of. Copy of the order be cornmunicated to the Petitioner through Superintendent, Tihar Jail. fyu^i'hqjg MUKTA CUPTA, r. \I/.P.(CRL) 1137/2011 Poge 2 of 2 MARCH 16,2012/,vn,

$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT w.P.(cRL) rL37 t20rr NEW DELHI SABAL SINGH @ MAKI{AN SINGH ..... Petitioner STATE Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate VETSUS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Dayan Ikishnan, A.S.C. for State. o CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA