Mohd. Shahabuddin vs The State, Govt Of Nct, Delhi on 28 September, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mohd. Shahabuddin vs The State, Govt Of Nct, Delhi on 28 September, 2020

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                                                 via Video-conferencing
$~22
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P. (CRL) 1558/2020

       MOHD. SHAHABUDDIN                                 ....Petitioner
                   Through:            Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with
                                       Mr. Aman Khullar, Ms. Kamna Singh,
                                       Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Mr. Vishal
                                       Raj Sehejpal & Mr. Khalil A. Ansari,
                                       Advs.
                              versus

       THE STATE, GOVT OF NCT, DELHI            ...... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                     ORDER

% 28.09.2020 CRL.M.A. Nos. 13368-69/2020 (for exemptions) Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P. (CRL) 1558/2020 The petitioner, who is serving sentence inter alia in case arising from FIR No. 362/2016 at PS : Nagar Thana, Siwan, Bihar, seeks custody parole on the ground that his father passed away on 19.09.2020; that he wishes to spend time with his grieving mother, who is also extremely unwell; and to offer prayers at the grave of his late father, to attend and perform the religious rites and ceremonies for the departed soul; and also to spend time with his family.

W.P. (CRL) 1558/2020 Page 1 of 3

2. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, instructed by Mr. Khalil A. Ansari, submits that the demise of the petitioner's father is evidenced by death certificate dated 24.09.2020 issued by the Department of Planning & Development, Grama Panchayat Pakwaliya, Bihar.

3. Mr. Khurshid further submits that in February 2017 the petitioner was transferred under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from prison in Bihar to serve sentence at the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi; and that he was granted interim bail, which he availed from 10.09.2016 to 30.09.2016, whereupon he duly surrendered on time and did not misuse the liberty.

4. Mr. Khurshid further points-out that vidé communication dated 21.09.2020, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar has in fact recommended that custody parole may be granted to the petitioner in view of his father's demise.

5. It is also pointed-out, in all fairness, that a parole petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was however withdrawn on mentioning, as recorded in order dated 25.09.2020 made in W.P. (CRL) No. 280/2020.

6. Mr. Khurshid submits, on instructions, that on legal advice the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was simply withdrawn; and though no liberty was specifically reserved to move a parole petition before this court, that was in fact the reason for withdrawal.

7. Issue notice.

8. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned ASC appears for the State on advance copy ;

accepts notice ; and seeks time to file status report.

W.P. (CRL) 1558/2020 Page 2 of 3

9. Mr. Lao submits that the demise of the petitioner's father is being verified and a status report to that effect will be filed. He submits that although the issue whether parole may be granted to a convict, who is also an undertrial in another case in which he is not on bail, is pending consideration of this court; that issue would not arise in this case if the petitioner is only seeking custody parole.

10. Mr. Lao submits however that the petitioner must clarify what exactly he had prayed for before the Supreme Court by way of W.P. (CRL) No. 280/2020 and in what circumstances the said writ petition was withdrawn.

11. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to place on record a complete copy of the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court.

12. Counsel who appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter are also required to remain present via video- conferencing on the next date of hearing.

13. Let status report verifying the demise of the petitioner's father be filed before the next date, with advance copy to the opposing counsel.

14. Mr. Khurshid has also confirmed, on instructions from Mr. Ansari, that the petitioner would bear the entire expense that would be involved for the travel, boarding and lodging of the police officer/s who would accompany the petitioner, in the event he is granted custody parole.

15. List on 06th October 2020.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2020/uj W.P. (CRL) 1558/2020 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders