W.P.(CRL)/3812/2024 of MD YASIR Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2024-12-05

Parties

MD YASIR (PETITIONER)
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CRL.M.C./2191/2020 of YOGENDER @ BANTY & ORS. Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. & ANR. (2020)

Statutes cited (2)

constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
constitution of india (1950)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3812/2024

MD YASIR

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Manjeet Kirpal and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the State with Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. with SI Vishwas, PS Chandni Mahal.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJANO R R% 05.12.2024

CRL.M.A. 36633/2024 (exemption from filing certified copy,dim copy, typed and legible copies and left side margin of theannexures)

1.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 3812/2024 & CRL.M.A. 36632/2024

3.By the present petition, the petitioner seeks pre-mature release in terms of the Policy of pre-mature release dated 16.07.2004.

4.The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is absconding. He submits that no writ petition of an absconder shall be entertained.

5.He submits that the petitioner, despite the period of release

on furlough having expired, has not surrendered. He submits that discretionary relief shall not be granted in favour of the person who is absconding.

6.Concededly, the period for which the petitioner was released on furlough has already expired.

7.No prayer for pre-mature release can be entertained when the petitioner is admittedly not in custody and in fact has overshot the period of release on furlough.

8.It is settled law that person who is evading the legal procedures is not entitled to such discretionary relief. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by taking advantage of his deliberate abscondence. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who is deliberately evading the process of law.

9.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

10.The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition after he has surrendered.

DECEMBER 5, 2024

‘KDK’

AMIT MAHAJAN, J