IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

INDEX

S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. MEMO OF PARTIES

2. BRIEF SYNOPSIS

3. LIST OF DATE AND EVENTS

4. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W ARTICLE 227 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
Cr.P.C., ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI …….RESPONDENT 1

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI …….RESPONDENT 2

3. THE SUPERITENDENT OF PRISON

CENTRAL PRISON, TIHAR,NEW DELHI …….RESPONDENT 3

4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

SAKET POLICE STATION,
NEW DELHI- 1100XX ……RESPONDENTS 4
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

BRIEF SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner was convicted on 15.01.2007 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in
the Case No. 001/2006 of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Saket, Saket District Courts,
New Delhi. The complaint was registered at Saket Police Station, vide crime no. 201/2006,
u/s 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C. That on the mid-night of 02.05.2006, between 01:15 hrs. to
01:45 hrs., the petitioner along with his associates formed an unlawful assembly at Mehrauli-
Badarpur Marg and after a while inside the Saket Police Station, assaulted one unnamed
person with knife and committed murder by intentionally causing death of one Singh @ Jai
Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. That the Petitioner
was awarded life imprisonment by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Saket, Saket
Districts Courts, New Delhi, in crime no. 201/2006 dated 15.01.2007. That the life
imprisonment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. That the petitioner has been
undergoing life imprisonment from the date of conviction from 15.01.2007 to till date. That
the Petitioner has already completed 14 years as on (25.05.2021) in the Central Prisons, Tihar
Jail, New Delhi. That a Writ Appeal(W.A.) of 2021 was preferred in the matter of ‘remission
by convicts’, including (the Petitioner herein) from the State in exercise of its statutory
power under section 432, 433 & 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That later
on I.G. of Prisons, New Delhi has stated that the Chairman of the Advisory board has
recommended premature release of the life convict inmate despite objection by its members.
But the Government has dissolved on 22.02.2022, hence the minutes of Meeting could not
able to be processed. Hence, the case of the convict (petitioner herein) was placed on next
Advisory Board which is held on 28.01.2022. However, the Board has not considered the
premature release of the petitioner by stating that the victim family may take revenge on him.
According to the Probation report received from the Probation Officer, it is stated that, on the
enquiry made with the area people it reveals that the premature release of the petitioner will
not cause impact in the locality. The petitioner was released on Emergency Parole leave for
so many times and surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Puducherry
without any remarks. Hence, the release of the petitioner on premature is recommended. The
copy of the report of the Probation officer is annexed as .In his report the Superintendent of
Jail, Central Prison, Tihar Jails, New Delhi, has informed that the petitioner has availed 33
times (156 days) of Parole leave, he has surrendered in the Prison after the completion of his
parole leave period without any remarks. During his confinement in this prison his behaviour
and character are good and recommended for premature release of petitioner. The Prison
Medical Officer in his report certified that the petitioner is mentally and physically fit and no
evidence of any communicable disease. The Sentence Review board perused the reports from
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South East, New Delhi, the Probation Officer, Tihar
Jails , the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saket District Courts, Saket, New Delhi, the
Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jails, and the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Tihar Jails, New
Delhi. The board has examined the case of the petitioner, with reference to all the above-
mentioned reports and after detailed deliberations and taking cognizance of all the facts and
circumstances of the crime committed. Now, the Special Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner of Police (L&O) i/c has stated that now also the victim family may take
revenge on him. Hence, the Board arbitrarily decided not to recommend the premature
release of the petitioner vide impugned order. Thus, now this present writ petition.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

LIST OF DATE AND EVENTS

S.NO. DATE PARTICULARS

1. 02.05.2006 That the petitioner along with his associates, between 01:15
hrs. to 01:45 hrs., formed an unlawful assembly at Mehrauli-
Badarpur Marg and after a while inside the Saket Police
Station, assaulted one unnamed person with knife and
committed murder by intentionally causing death of one
Singh @ Jai Singh.

2. --------- That a complaint was registered against the petitioner at

Saket Police Station, vide Crime No. 201/2006, and the
petitioner was booked u/s 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C.

3. 15.01.2007 That the petitioner was convicted in the Case No. 001/2006,
by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Saket, Saket
District Courts, New Delhi. That the petitioner was awarded
Life Imprisonment by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Saket, Saket Districts Courts, New Delhi.

4. 24.05.2007 That the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Bail
Application moved in by the petitioner, and the Life
imprisonment was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court.
5. 25.05.2021 That the petitioner has already completed 14 years as on the
date mentioned in the Central Prisons, Tihar Jail, New
Delhi.

6. --------- That a Writ Appeal(W.A.) of 2021 was preferred in the

matter of ‘remission by convicts’, including (the petitioner
herein) from the State in exercise of its Statutory power
under section 432, 433 & 433A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

7. -------- Hence, now this present writ petition.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PRAYING INTER ALIA FOR ISSUING WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT FOR CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS AND QUASHING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 NO.
151/JD/XXXXXXXX/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS & FOR A DIRECTION
TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER I.E., DETENU,
CONFINED IN CENTRAL PRISON, TIHAR JAILS, NEW DELHI

To
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS OTHER COMPANION JUDGES
OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAY IT PLEASE TO THIS HON’BLE COURT
The humble Petitioner, above named, most respectfully begs to submit as
under:-

1. That the Petitioner have filed this instant writ petition under Article 226
of the Indian Constitution seeking an intervention of this Hon’ble Court
with respect to the impugned order dated 22.02.2023, NO.
 151/JD/XXXXXXXX/2023, passed by the jail department, Government
of NCT of Delhi.

2. That the petitioner is a citizen of India who is being aggrieved of the

arbitrary and unlawful action of the respondents wherein the
recommendation of pre-release of the petitioner from the central prison,
Tihar Jails, New Delhi, has been turned down in a wholly arbitrary and
utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. That the Petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned action is competent

to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in order to
seek redressal of his grievances by preferring the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. That all the Respondents are State and its functionaries who are duly
covered under the ambit of ‘STATE’ as enshrined under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. Hence, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble High Court.

5. That the brief of the factual matrix of the case is submitted for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble High Court:

(i) The Petitioner was convicted on 15.01.2007 and sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment in the Case No. 001/2006 of the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge-02, Saket, Saket District Courts, New
Delhi.

(ii) That the complaint was registered at Saket Police Station, vide
crime no. 201/2006, u/s 148, 149 and 302 of I.P.C.

(iii) That on the mid-night of 02.05.2006, between 01:15 hrs. to 01:45

hrs., the petitioner along with his associates formed an unlawful
assembly at Mehrauli-Badarpur Marg and after a while inside the
Saket Police Station, assaulted one unnamed person with knife and
committed murder by intentionally causing death of one Singh @
Jai Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w
149 I.P.C.

(iv) That the Petitioner was awarded life imprisonment by the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge-02, Saket, Saket Districts Courts, New
Delhi, in crime no. 201/2006 dated 15.01.2007.
(v) That the life imprisonment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court. That the petitioner has been undergoing life
imprisonment from the date of conviction from 15.01.2007 to till
date.

(vi) That the Petitioner has already completed 14 years as on

(25.05.2021) in the Central Prisons, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. That a
Writ Appeal(W.A.) of 2021 was preferred in the matter of
‘remission by convicts’, including (the Petitioner herein) from the
State in exercise of its statutory power under section 432, 433 &
433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(vii) That later on I.G. of Prisons, New Delhi has stated that the
Chairman of the Advisory board has recommended premature
release of the life convict inmate despite objection by its members.
But the Government has dissolved on 22.02.2022, hence the
minutes of Meeting could not able to be processed. Hence, the case
of the convict (petitioner herein) was placed on next Advisory
Board which is held on 28.01.2022. However, the Board has not
considered the premature release of the petitioner by stating that the
victim family may take revenge on him.

(viii) That according to the Probation report received from the Probation
Officer, it is stated that, on the enquiry made with the area people it
reveals that the premature release of the petitioner will not cause
impact in the locality.

(ix) That the petitioner was released on Emergency Parole leave for so
many times and surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail,
Central Prison, Puducherry without any remarks. Hence, the release
of the petitioner on premature is recommended.

(x) In his report the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Tihar Jails,
New Delhi, has informed that the petitioner has availed 33 times
(156 days) of Parole leave, he has surrendered in the Prison after
the completion of his parole leave period without any remarks.
During his confinement in this prison his behaviour and character
are good and recommended for premature release of petitioner.

(xi) The Prison Medical Officer in his report certified that the petitioner
is mentally and physically fit and no evidence of any
communicable disease.
 (xii) The Sentence Review board perused the reports from the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, South East, New Delhi, the Probation
Officer, Tihar Jails , the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saket District
Courts, Saket, New Delhi, the Superintendent of Jail, Tihar Jails,
and the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Tihar Jails, New Delhi.

(xiii) The board has examined the case of the petitioner, with reference to
all the above-mentioned reports and after detailed deliberations and
taking cognizance of all the facts and circumstances of the crime
committed.

(xiv) Now, the Special Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of

Police (L&O) i/c has stated that now also the victim family may
take revenge on him. Hence, the Board arbitrarily decided not to
recommend the premature release of the petitioner vide impugned
order.

6. That the petitioner is eligible for pre-mature release according to Delhi

Prisons Act, 2018. The eligibility Rule is extracted herein under:

Eligibility for premature release

1251. Every convicted prisoner whether male or female

undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the
provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C shall be eligible to be considered
for premature release from the prison immediately after serving out
the sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e., without the
remissions. It is, however, clarified that completion of 14 years in
prison by itself would not entitle a convict to automatic release
from the prison and the Sentence Review Board shall have the
discretion to recommend to release a convict, at an appropriate time
in all cases considering the circumstances in which the crime was
committed and other relevant factors like:-

a) Whether the convict has lost his potential for committing crime
considering his overall conduct in jail during the 14-year
incarceration.
b) The possibility of reclaiming the convict as a useful member of
the society and
c) Socio-Economic condition of the Convict’s family.
7. That the guidelines in this regard that have been issued by the National
Human Rights Commission, dated 26.09.2003, and which is applicable to
NCT of Delhi, is also extracted herein under:

3. Eligibility for premature release

3.1 Every convicted prisoner whether male or female undergoing

sentence of life imprisonment and covered by the provisions of
Section 433A Cr.P.C shall be eligible to be considered for
premature release from the prison immediately after serving out the
sentence of 14 years of actual imprisonment i.e., without the
remissions. It is, however, clarified that completion of 14 years in
prison by itself would not entitle a convict to automatic release
from the prison and the Sentence Review Board shall have the
discretion to release a convict, at an appropriate time in all cases
considering the circumstances in which the crime was committed
and other relevant factors like;

a) whether the convict has lost his potential for committing crime
considering his overall conduct in jail during the 14 year’s
incarceration;
b) the possibility of reclaiming the convict as a useful member of
the society; and
c) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.

With a view to bring about uniformity, the State/UT Governments

are, therefore, advised to prescribe the total period of imprisonment
to be undergone including remissions, subject to a minimum of 14
years of actual imprisonment before the convict prisoner is
released. The Commission is of the view that total period of
incarceration including remissions in such cases should ordinarily
not exceed 20 years.
Section 433A was enacted to deny premature release before
completion of 14 years of actual incarceration to such convicts as
stand convicted of a capital offence. The Commission is of the
view that within this category a reasonable classification can be
made on the basis of the magnitude, brutality and gravity of the
offence for which the convict was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Certain categories of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence
would be entitled to be considered for premature release only after
undergoing imprisonment for 20 years including remissions. The
period of incarceration inclusive of remissions even in such cases
 should not exceed 25 years. Following categories are mentioned in
this connection by way of illustration and are not to be taken as an
exhaustive list of such categories:

a) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life for murder in

heinous cases such as murder with rape, murder with dacoity,
murder involving an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights
Act 1955, murder for dowry, murder of a child below 14 years of
age, multiple murder, murder committed after conviction while
inside the jail, murder during parole, murder in a terrorist incident,
murder in smuggling operation, murder of a public servant on duty.
b) Gangsters, contract killers, smugglers, drug traffickers,
racketeers awarded life imprisonment for committing murders as
also the perpetrators of murder committed with pre-meditation and
with exceptional violence or perversity.
c) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life
imprisonment.
3.2 All other convicted male prisoners not covered by section 433A
Cr.PC undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be
entitled to be considered for premature release after they have
served at least 14 years of imprisonment inclusive of remission but
only after completion of 10 years actual imprisonment i.e. without
remissions.
3.3 The female prisoners not covered by section 433A Cr.PC
undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment would be entitled to
be considered for premature release after they have served at least
10 years of imprisonment inclusive of remissions but only after
completion of 7 years actual imprisonment i.e., without remissions.
3.4 Cases of premature release of persons undergoing life
imprisonment before completion of 14 years of actual
imprisonment on grounds of terminal illness or old age etc. can be
dealt with under the provisions of Art. 161 of the Constitution and
old paras 3.4 and 3.5 are therefore redundant and are omitted.

8. That it is needless to say that the petitioner deserves to be released

prematurely after considering all the above reports and the guidelines
issued regarding premature release of convicts. However, his release is
not considered by the Board merely on the apprehension that there would
be a danger to the life of the petitioner if he is released as the petitioner is
receiving life threats from the victims of the crime for which the
petitioner is convicted and they might take revenge on him.

9. That the victims of the crime for which the petitioner is convicted has
taken a stand in his Writ Appeal of 2021, that if the petitioner is released
pre-maturely then there is a danger on the life of the victim as he might
take revenge from them. On the contrary, according to the Police report of
the SHO Saket Police Station, New Delhi and sentence review board, it is
the petitioner who is facing life threat from opponents and his rivalry
group may take revenge on him.

10. That during the course of the meetings, the I.G of Prisons, Tihar Jails,
has stated that the Chairman of the Advisory Board has recommended
premature release of the Petitioner despite objection by its members. But
the Government has dissolved on 22.02.2022, hence the minutes of
Meeting could not able to be processed. Hence, the case of the petitioner
was placed on next Advisory Board which was held on 28.02.2022.
However, the Board has not considered the premature release of the
petitioner by stating that the victim family may take revenge on him.

11. It is distressful that the release of the petitioner has been repeatedly
denied and that too not on account of his bad conduct or that he may be a
danger to society, but only because earlier the Government was dissolved
and his case was transferred to the next advisory board and thereafter his
release is not considered only because there may be a threat to his life
from the opposing side.

12. That the petitioner was the only source of income to his family before
his conviction and now his parents are aged citizens and vulnerable to
financial instability, property and debt and also facing health issues and
social exclusion. That the petitioner’s family is concerned about his
premature release to take care and to support them. Thus, his family is
socially and economically weak.

13. That the petitioner’s track record is exceptional good as he did not at
all get involved in any offence and after the judgment of the Supreme
Court reversing the acquittal made by the High Court and confirming the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court,
he surrendered and his conduct in the prison thereafter has been
exemplary.

14. That the petitioner has turned into a new leaf, the State Government
should have considered his case favourably and released him under the
impugned order. Thus, the petitioner should have been released
prematurely based on his good conduct in the prison and his release
should not be denied on the sole basis of the apprehension of danger on
his life.

15. That the petitioner has not previously filed any such writ petition in
the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either before this
Hon’ble Court or before the Supreme Court of India.

16. That the petitioner is left with no other equally efficacious alternative
remedy and speedy remedy available except to approach this Hon’ble
Court by way of filing this writ petition.

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE the petitioner is a citizen of India who is being aggrieved

of the arbitrary and unlawful action of the respondents wherein the
recommendation of the pre-release of the petitioner from Central
Prions, Tihar Jails, has been turned down in a wholly arbitrary and in
utter violation of the principles of natural justice.
B. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the Police
report of the SHO Saket Police Station, Saket, New Delhi, through the
DCP (South-East) has stated that during the parole leave period the
petitioner had not involved in any criminal offences and breach of
conditions. It is pertinent to mention here that the report says the
petitioner is facing life threat from opponents and his rivalry group
may take revenge on him. The premature release of the accused
(Petitioner) will cause breath of peace which will create Law & Order
problem in the area.

C. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the

Probation report received from the Probation Officer, it is stated that,
on the enquiry made with the area people it reveals that the premature
release of the petitioner will not cause impact in the locality. The
petitioner was released on Emergency Parole leave for so many times
and surrendered before the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, New
Delhi without any remarks. Hence, the release of the petitioner on
premature is recommended.

D. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that in his report
the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Tihar Jails, New Delhi, has
informed that the petitioner has availed 33 times (156 days) of Parole
leave, he has surrendered in the Prison after the completion of his
parole leave period without any remarks. During his confinement in
this prison his behaviour and character are good and recommended for
premature release of petitioner.

E. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the Prison
Medical Officer in his report certified that the petitioner is mentally
and physically fit and no evidence of any communicable disease.
F. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the
petitioner is eligible for pre – mature release according to Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018 and the guidelines in this regard that have been issued by
the National Human Rights Commission, dated 26.9.2003.

G. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the

petitioner deserves to be released prematurely after considering all the
above reports and the guidelines issued regarding premature release of
convicts. However, his release is not considered by the Board merely
on the apprehension that there would be a danger to the life of the
petitioner if he is released as the petitioner is receiving life threats
from the victims of the crime for which the petitioner is convicted and
they might take revenge on him.

H. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the victims
of the crime for which the petitioner is convicted has taken a stand in
his W.A. of 2021, that if the petitioner is released pre – maturely then
there is a danger on the life of the victim as he might take revenge
from them. On the contrary, according to the Police report of the SHO
Saket Police Station, Saket, New Delhi, and sentence review board, it
is the petitioner who is facing life threat from opponents and his
rivalry group may take revenge on him.

I. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that during the
course of the meetings, the I.G of Prisons, Puducherry has stated that
the Chairman of the Advisory Board has recommended premature
release of the Petitioner despite objection by its members. But the
Government has dissolved on 22.02.2022, hence the minutes of
Meeting could not able to be processed. Hence, the case of the
petitioner was placed on next Advisory Board which was held on
 28.01.2022. However, the Board has not considered the premature
release of the petitioner by stating that the victim family may take
revenge on him.
J. BECAUSE the petitioner was the only source of income to his family
before his conviction and now his parents are aged citizens and
vulnerable to financial instability, poverty and debt and also facing
health issues and social exclusion. That the Petitioner’s family is
concerned about his pre-mature release to take care and support them.
Thus, his family is socially and economically weak.

K. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that it is

distressful that the release of the petitioner has been repeatedly denied
and that too not on account of his bad conduct or that he may be a
danger to society, but only because earlier the Government was
dissolved and his case was transferred to the next advisory board and
thereafter his release is not considered only because there may be a
threat to his life from the opposing side.

L. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the

petitioner’s track record is exceptionally good as he did not at all get
involved in any offence and after the judgment of the Supreme Court
reversing the acquittal made by the High Court and confirming the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court, he surrendered and his conduct in the prison thereafter has been
exemplary.

M. BECAUSE the respondents failed to consider the fact that the

petitioner has turned into a new leaf, the State Government should
have considered his case favourably and released him under the
impugned order. Thus, the petitioner should have been released
prematurely based on his good conduct in the prison and his release
 should not be denied on the sole basis of the apprehension of danger
on his life.

N. BECAUSE the petitioner craves the liberty to raise other grounds

which would be submitted at the time of final arguments.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be

pleased

(i) to call for entire record and quash and set aside the impugned order

(ii) to direct the respondents to release the convict.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case  may also kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioner.

PETITIONER

THROUGH
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(Crl.)No. ………. of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAHESH @ MIKU ……PETITIONER

VERSUS
STATE [GOVT. NCT OF DELHI] & Ors. …….RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mahesh, s/o --------------, aged about -------- years, residing at

------------, detenu no. ---------, the deponent hereinabove do hereby
solemnly affirm and state here under:

1. I say that I am the petitioner and I’m personally aware of the facts and
circumstances of the present Petition based upon the records
maintained in the ordinary course of business and I’m duly authorized
and competent to swear and file the accompanying Petition and the
present affidavit.

2. I say that the accompanying application has been drafted and filed by
 my counsel upon my instructions and contents of the same are true and
correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, Mahesh , do hereby verify on this…….day of…….,2023 at _______ that the

contents of the above said affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
information and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT