The Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal were dealing with a Criminal Reference under Section 395 CrPC, filed by a CBI Special Judge highlighting the issue of granting custody parole to an accused facing Trial in Three Cases.
The facts of the case were that the accused moved an application seeking custody parole in case before learned Additional Sessions Judge which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2019. Since then the accused has been on custody parole which has been extended as many as 6 times upto 14.12.2019.
The accused moved a Bail Application before High Court of Delhi seeking extension of custody parole, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2019. The accused was facing trial in a case before the court of Special Judge Ms. Kiran Bansal, Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi and was not produced before the Judge on the date fixed.
The learned Special Judge through present criminal reference, submitted that the accused was granted custody parole by the order of learned ASJ, West District, Tis Hazari but the accused failed to seek permission from her Court despite a case being pending trial before her Court and proceeded on custody parole. She further added that no such information was received either from the accused or from the concerned Jail Superintendent.
She further brought on record that the custody parole of the accused had been extended from time to time and despite directions to the Jail Superintendent to produce the accused before her court, the Jail Superintendent failed to produce the accused before her Court.
On inquiry, it had been explained by the Jail Superintendent that the ASJ had directed that the Jail Superintendent should not produce the accused anywhere till further directions and to ensure that the purpose of custody parole granted is not defeated. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the DCP for not producing the accused before her Court, she forwarded the present reference.
The accused was facing trial in three different cases before three different courts. One Court having issued an order of custody parole for the eventualities as mentioned in the Rule 1203, it was incumbent on the Director General Prison / Jail Superintendent to inform the other two Courts about the absence of the accused, obtain the next date for production of the accused.
The High Court stated that the accused in the present case, astonishingly has been on custody parole since 05.07.2019 which was in gross violation of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and law pertaining to the custody parole.
The HC felt that it was strange that the State failed to challenge the orders extending the parole and no action was taken by the concerned authorities.
The bench directed the State to take the accused in custody forthwith and sent him to the concerned jail and Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the present matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law against erring Jail and Police Officials and other concerned to be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks.
The bench further directed that the Additional Sessions Judge needs to explain his conduct in granting the custody parole and extension thereof on various dates.
The HC directed the Registry is to place its order before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side for taking action against Additional Sessions Judge concerned.
Read the Two Orders here-
Delhi High Court Order in Cr. Reference on Parole granted by Court befond Rules, recommends action against Judge, Dec, 2019
Share this Document :Picture Source :
