Delhi High Court Grants Conditional Custody Parole To Ex Bihar MP Mohd. Shahabuddin To Meet Relatives

The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing the plea of Shahabuddin who submitted (through his Counsel, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid) that his father passed away recently; and in view thereof, he wishes to spend time with his grieving mother, who is herself, extremely unwell.

It was also submitted that he has to attend and perform religious rites and ceremonies for the departed soul and wants to spend time with his family in this time of grief.

It may be noted that Custody parole contemplates a situation whereby, for special exigencies mentioned in the jail rules, the prisoner is granted guarded liberty and the jail travels with the prisoner to wherever the prisoner is allowed to go under orders of the court.

Apex Court shifted him to Tihar Jail

the Apex Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary judicial powers, shifted former Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) Parliamentarian Shahabuddin to Tihar Jail Delhi (from Siwan Jail in Bihar) to undergo sentence as well as trials outside the State of Bihar "for compelling considerations".

The top court's order had come on a plea filed by Asha Ranjan, the widow of slain Siwan-based journalist Rajdeo Ranjan and Chandrakeshwar Prasad, whose three sons were killed in separate incidents by the gangster.

Submissions

It was argued that it was for the State of Bihar to take a stand in relation to his prayer for custody parole since all cases in which he has been implicated, and in which he is either under trial or has been convicted, are registered in the State of Bihar; and the petitioner is only in custody at the Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi under directions of the Apex Court.

The ASC appearing for the State (NCT of Delhi) opposed grant of custody parole, submitting that he is implicated in some 41 criminal cases of very serious nature; that he is a habitual offender; and that his petition may therefore be assessed accordingly.

Importantly, it was submitted that he is in custody at the Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi under directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that he is a very high-risk prisoner.

It was also submitted that the Apex Court has observed that even to allow the petitioner (Shahabuddin) to undergo sentence or be in custody as an undertrial within the State of Bihar would be a risk, which is what impelled SC to transfer the petitioner from Bihar to Delhi.

The police departments of the States of Bihar and Delhi both submitted in unison that they cannot assure the petitioner's custody and safety.

Alternatively, they also stated before the Court that they would need to deploy inordinately vast resources, if the petitioner's custody and safety is to be ensured.

Court's Observations

While noting that rare is it to come-upon a case where State Governments are unsure and dithering to make a commitment that they can ensure the custody of a prisoner, the Delhi High Court, in its order noted.

"He is a Category 'A' history-sheeter, meaning thereby that as per the State he is 'beyond reformation'; that he has scores of extremely heinous criminal cases against him, in some of which he already stands convicted and in others he is undergoing trial."

In view of the above, the court opined,

"A very strict balancing is required between the humane considerations for grant of custody parole and the overarching considerations of ensuring judicial custody of the prisoner; his own safety and the safety of others; and ensuring that there is no subversion of, or prejudice to, the legal process."

The HC also noted that the very presence of the petitioner within the State of Bihar was perceived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a grave threat and interference in the course of justice.

Yet, in an effort to balance competing interests and rights, the Court said that it "would not completely negate the petitioner's plea for custody parole in the backdrop of the recent bereavement, he has suffered."

Lastly, in the opinion of this court, the foregoing considerations are adequately and justly balanced, by issuing the following directions:

a. The petitioner is granted 'custody parole' for a period of 06 (six) hours at a time on any 03 (three) days of his choice, whether consecutive days or otherwise, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order;

b. On each of these 03 days, the petitioner would be taken 'in custody' with adequate police security and protection, to a single address of his choice to be indicated by him in writing to the Jail Superintendent in advance, but only within the State of Delhi; which address and location would be verified and secured appropriately by the State;

c. On each of these 03 days of his choosing, the petitioner shall be taken 'in custody' to the verified address for a maximum of 06 hours, excluding the time of travel to and from that address, between 6.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on each such day;

d. During the period of custody parole, the petitioner shall be free to meet only his mother, wife and any other blood relatives but no one else; and the petitioner shall be afforded sufficient privacy to interact with such persons as he pleases;

e. It is made clear that in the course of custody parole, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the presence of his personal guards or other such persons;

f. In order to execute the aforesaid directions, the petitioner is directed to furnish to the Jail Superintendent the address which he would like to visit during custody parole within 03 days of this order, which address may accordingly, be verified in advance.

[Picture Courtesy - DNA India]