Mukesh v. State

ORDER o/o

01.07.2013

¶1The petitionerhas filed the-present petition praying inter alia for extension of parole on the ground that his father is undergoing treatment at the OPD in ESI Hospital and he needs constant care.

¶2A status report has been filed by the State, wherein it is confirmed that the father of the petitioner is visiting ESI Hospital for undertaking treatment for hypertension, diabetes and spinal flexion. The status report mentionsthat the petitioner is a permanent resident of Shastri Nagar, Delhi and has a joint family that includes his parents, three brothers, nephew and niece, etc. and apart from one of the brothers, Mr. Suresh Kumar, who has been residing in Vaishali, 1 of3 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Ghaziabad for the last ten years, all the remaining family members are living in the same premises. The eider brother of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Rakesh, is stated to have been convicted in case FIR No.105/1988 under Section 302/34 IPG, and he is already on parole to attend to his son, who has undergone renal transplantation and needs constant care.

¶3Gounsel for the petitioner states that as the elder brother of the petitioner is preoccupied with the treatment of his son, he is unavailable to take care of the father. However, counsel for the respondent/State points out that apart from Mr. Rakesh, the elder brother of the petitioner, Mr. Suresh is also available to attend to his father and the younger son of Mr. Rakesh, who is living in the same premises,can easily attend to the father of the petitioner,who is only an outdoor patient at ESI Hospital.

¶4Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already been granted parole for a period of one month on 4.3.2013, which period was extended by two weeks, vide order dated 7.6.2013, and in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner is an outdoor patient and can be escorted to the hospital by the other members of the family, who reside in the same premises, the Gourt is not inclinedto extend the Page2 of3 parole granted to the petitioner on the grounds mentioned in the present petition. As the parole of the petitioner expires today, the petitioner shall surrender before the Superintendent, Jail in the course of the day.

¶5The petition is disposed of. HIMA KOHLI, J JULY 01, 2013 sk/rkb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(CRL.)NO.996/2013 MUKESH Petitioners Tlirough : Mr. Aldanish Rein, Advocate versus Respondent Through Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Advocate for |V|r. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with SI Shri Gopal, PS Shakarpur. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI