SHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks release of the petitioner on parole in order to enable him to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP). Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner urges that the order rejecting the application for parole suffers from two infirmities--(a) that the requirement as per Para 11.1 of Parole/Furlough Guidelines, 2010, which stipulates that a convict must have served at least one year in prison before applying for parole is contrary to a decision of this Court in Veena v. State, 2010 4 JCC 2721 and (b) that the observation that there is no special occasion or reason for granting parole to the petitioner in order to enable him to engage legal counsel to prefer a SLP before the Supreme Court, is contrary to law laid down in Somesh Gupta v. State of the NCT of Delhi, 2010 1 JCC 630.

(2.) Notice.

(3.) Ms. Charu Dalal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Saleem Ahmed, learned Officiating Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepts notice and has hand over a status report, which is taken on record. From a perusal of the same it is revealed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of House No. 1816, Gali Khatikan, Chowk Shah Mubarak, Sita Ram Bazar, Hauz Qazi, Delhi and his family consists of his wife, two children, his parents and two younger brothers.