High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 01 P&H CK 0274

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.T. Chandigarh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 31 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Saron, J · Rameshwar Singh Malik, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48929 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. D-520-DB of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 417 words
1.

Notice was issued to the father-in-law of the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar, on the last date of hearing. Sh.Medha son of Kanhaiya, resident of House No.426, Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh, along with his neighbour Sh.Jatinder Kumar son of Ram Raj resident of House No.450, Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh, have appeared. Children of the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar are also present.

2.

The applicant-appellant-Sunil Kumar has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 09.05.2009 for the offence u/s 302 IPC. In terms of the order dated 11.05.2009, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal is pending in this Court.

3.

During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar was granted parole for a period of 28 days subject to the condition as provided for in the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, U.T.Chandigarh. The applicant-appellant-Sunil Kumar was required to furnish, to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate a bond and a surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, the applicant-appellant has not been able to furnish the said surety. Therefore, it was prayed that necessary arrangements be made to enable the applicant-appellant to meet his children namely Sandeep (son) and Mansi (daughter), who were residing with his in-laws at Manimajra.

4.

Accordingly, notice was issued to the father-in-law of the Sunil Kumar versus State of U.T.Chandigarh applicant-appellant. Sh.Medha son of Kanhaiya has appeared and stated that he is the father-in-law of the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar. He is not on good terms with the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar. However, he has no objection if the children namely Sandeep (son) and Mansi (daughter) meet their father Sunil Kumar, in the jail premises itself.

5.

Accordingly, Medha son of Kanhaiya shall take the children of the applicant-appellant to the Burail Jail, Chandigarh on 15.02.2012, so as to enable them to meet the applicant-appellant Sunil Kumar. Sh.Jatinder Kumar son of Ram Raj, a neighbour of Medha(father-in-law of the applicant) has agreed to facilitate the children meet their father. The jail authorities shall provide necessary facilities in accordance with rules to enable the children to meet their father.

6.

In the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the present criminal misc. application, which is accordingly, disposed of.

7.

Copy of this order be, however forwarded to the Superintendent Model Jail, Chandigarh, for necessary compliance so as to facilitate the meeting of the children with their father Sunil Kumar-applicant-appellant.