$~48
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%					                    Date of Decision: 25.09.2026
#	CNR No. DLHC010461492026
+ 	W.P.(CRL) 3013/2026 & CRL.M.A. 30106/2026
	AMAN@SONU						    .....Petitioner
Through:	Ms. Sonam Tomar, Advocate (through videoconferencing).
				versus

     STATE (NCT OF DELHI)				   .....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for R-1 with SI Shweta, PS Sabzi Mandi.







     CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

                                                                        
J U D G M E N T    (ORAL)

1.	Petitioner seeks parole for a period of eight weeks in case FIR No. 172/2014 of Police Station Sabzi Mandi for offence under Section 366/376D/ 376(2)(N)/34 IPC.

2.	Learned counsel for petitioner appearing through videoconferencing submits that petitioner had sent by post the application for parole on 19.08.2026 but the same has not been decided till date by the competent authority. 
	
3.	At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of ASC submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is submitted that the application, which according to the petitioner, was thumb marked and sent on 19.08.2026 was never received by the department because according to the tracking report retrieved by him, the envelope of the application mentioned incomplete address. More importantly, it is submitted by learned counsel that on 19.08.2026, when the parole application was allegedly dispatched, the petitioner was already on furlough and could have signed the same. It is submitted that the thumb mark, which is on the said application, appears to have been fabricated as it is fudged and cannot be verified. 

4.	Further, there is no reason as to why the parole application would not be handed over personally by the petitioner to the Jail Superintendent.  

5.	Even the present petition is supported by the affidavit of only some friend and not a close relative of the petitioner. 

6.	In view of above circumstances, it is not clear if the petitioner has so far even applied before the competent authority for grant of parole. The petition and the accompanying application are dismissed.



GIRISH KATHPALIA
     (JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/dr



W.P.(CRL) 3013/2026		 				             	       Page 1 of 3 pages