Full Text
Translation output
CRL.REF. 5/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REF. 5/2019
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner
Through:
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REF. 5/2019
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel Criminal with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Tripathi, Advocate for the accused.
DCP Rajesh Deo, ACP Jasbir Singh, Insp. Ritesh, SI Dheeraj
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel Criminal with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Tripathi, Advocate for the accused.
DCP Rajesh Deo, ACP Jasbir Singh, Insp. Ritesh, SI Dheeraj
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R
20.12.2019 Crl. M.A. 43297/2019 This matter has been listed today in the post lunch session after special mentioning being allowed by this Court.
Present application has been filed for modification of order dated
19.12.2019.
At the outset, Mr Rahul Mehra, the learned Standing Counsel for Delhi Administration and Delhi Police states that due to lack of instructions, he had mistakenly stated that the Court could order a CBI inquiry against the erring jail and police officials.
2019:DHC:7150-DB Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) submitted that the present application has been preferred seeking modification for drawing the attention of the court to bring some additional facts on record being that the accused Sukash @ Sukesh Chandrashekar had moved an application for grant of regular bail with a prayer for custody parole which was listed before the learned ASJ-04, West
District, Tis Hazari Court on 04.07.2019 and the learned Sessions
Judge directed the Investigating Officer to verify the medical records of the wife of the accused through e-mail and the matter was listed for
05.07.2019. On 05.07.2019 the Investigating Officer sought permission of the court for physically verifying the medical records of the wife of the applicant/ accused, however, the learned ASJ-04, West
District, Tis Hazari Court declined the prayer made by the
Investigating Officer and instead issued notice against the
Investigating Officer and sought his explanation for non-compliance of order dated 04.07.2019.
It is further submitted in the modification application that application for extension of custody parole was moved on 29.07.2019 by the accused and the same was strongly opposed by the
Investigating Officer through its prosecutor and relied on the
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R
20.12.2019 Crl. M.A. 43297/2019 This matter has been listed today in the post lunch session after special mentioning being allowed by this Court.
Present application has been filed for modification of order dated
19.12.2019.
At the outset, Mr Rahul Mehra, the learned Standing Counsel for Delhi Administration and Delhi Police states that due to lack of instructions, he had mistakenly stated that the Court could order a CBI inquiry against the erring jail and police officials.
2019:DHC:7150-DB Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) submitted that the present application has been preferred seeking modification for drawing the attention of the court to bring some additional facts on record being that the accused Sukash @ Sukesh Chandrashekar had moved an application for grant of regular bail with a prayer for custody parole which was listed before the learned ASJ-04, West
District, Tis Hazari Court on 04.07.2019 and the learned Sessions
Judge directed the Investigating Officer to verify the medical records of the wife of the accused through e-mail and the matter was listed for
05.07.2019. On 05.07.2019 the Investigating Officer sought permission of the court for physically verifying the medical records of the wife of the applicant/ accused, however, the learned ASJ-04, West
District, Tis Hazari Court declined the prayer made by the
Investigating Officer and instead issued notice against the
Investigating Officer and sought his explanation for non-compliance of order dated 04.07.2019.
It is further submitted in the modification application that application for extension of custody parole was moved on 29.07.2019 by the accused and the same was strongly opposed by the
Investigating Officer through its prosecutor and relied on the
JUDGMENT
titled as Election Commission of India vs. Mukhtar Ansari
& Anr. passed in Crl. M.C. No.689/2017 and Crl. M.M.
No.2923/2017. Learned counsel further submitted that on 02.07.2019 the Investigating Officer went to Cochin, Kerala to verify the medical documents, despite the fact that court had taken a strong exception.
On 14.11.2019, the Crime Branch officials were barred by a court order to verify the facts by visiting Cochin, Kerala personally without the permission of the court. It is further submitted in the application that no instructions were received from the prosecution branch for filing an appeal / revision against the custody parole which was constantly granted to the accused. Finally a proposal dated
25.11.2019 was moved by the investigating agency against the order dated 22.11.2019 which was cleared by the prosecution branch but is still pending with the Law Department, GNCTD for approval of the competent authority. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-04, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi reads as under:-
“This Court has failed to understand as to what is the role of Special CP, if the officer of Crime Branch wanted to verify the medical documents, then this Court could have been informed and approach for the same. Earlier also the doctors was threatened by the previous Crime branch officers. Now against same modus operand has been adopted. This Court has failed to understand as to what is the personal interest of officer of Crime branch in this matter. They are dis-obeying the orders of this Court.”
He further submitted that the accused has obtained an order dated 15.10.2019 from the Madras High Court whereby his custody parole was extended for five more days which stood expired on
13.12.2019. He further submitted that a proposal for filing an SLP against the order of Madras High Court is underway.
Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) submitted that on 19.12.2019, he had without hesitation taken responsibility on himself for the inaction of the State and in the interest of justice submitted that he would not stand in the way of the court if a CBI inquiry was initiated. He now submits that the facts stated today in the application for modification were not brought to his notice yesterday. Even today he submits that the erring officials should be taken to task and the order be modified to the extent that an inquiry be conducted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi as far as the police officials are concerned and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD be directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring Jail authorities.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the detenue states that though he was aware of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, he was not aware that there was a prescribed time limit of 6 (six) hours for custody parole. He prays that the said fact be incorporated in the amended order.
Heard. Since the present criminal reference is pending consideration before this Court and now fixed for arguments on
20.01.2020, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated
19.12.2019 to the extent that instead of a CBI inquiry at this stage the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall conduct an inquiry with respect to observation made by this court in order dated 19.12.2019 against the erring police officials and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD shall conduct an inquiry against the erring jail officials in terms of order dated 19.12.2019.
Accordingly, the modification as sought above is allowed. The rest of the directions contained in order dated 19.12.2019 shall remain the same. Application stands disposed of. The order dated 19th December, 2019 shall now read as under:-
“% ORDER
19.12.2019 Present Criminal Reference under Section 395(2)
Cr.P.C., has been received from Special Judge, (PC Act)
(ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi on the following issues: -
“Q.1 If an accused is in custody in more than one case and the concerned trial courts are more than one, then whether the accused is required to obtain custody parole from each and every concerned court or the accused can move to any one court of his choice for seeking custody parole?
Q.2 Maximum duration in which the custody parole can be granted to an under-trail?
Q.3 In case custody parole application is moved to only one of the concerned court then whether any permission is required from the other concerned courts before sending the under-trial on custody parole?
Q.4 In case, permission is not required from the other concerned courts, then whether the Jail
Superintendent or accused should give intimation to the other concerned courts regarding sending the under-trial on the custody parole?”
The relevant facts of the present reference are that the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar is in judicial custody in case FIR No.186/2017 registered at Police
Station Crime Branch and FIR No.166/2017 registered at
Police Station Crime Branch both pending at Tis Hazari
Courts and also in FIR No.56/2017 registered at Police
Station Crime Branch pending at Rouse Avenue District
Court.
The accused moved an application seeking custody parole in case FIR No. 166/2017 before learned Additional
Sessions Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2019. Since then the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar is on custody parole which has been extended from time to time i.e. on
17.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 10.10.2019, 02.11.2019 and lastly on 22.11.2019 till 14.12.2019.
The custody parole granted to the accused vide last order dated 22.11.2019, came to an end on 14.12.2019. The accused moved a Bail Application No. 3089/2019 before
HIGH COURT OF DELHI which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2019.
The accused was facing trial in case FIR No.
186/2017 before the court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special
Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi and was not produced before her on the date fixed.
Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) through present criminal reference, has submitted that the accused was granted custody parole by the order of learned
ASJ-04, 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 till
14.12.2019 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-
04, West District, Tihar Jail vide order dated 29.11.2019 had directed that the Jail Superintendent should not produce the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar 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 3rd
Battalion for not producing the accused before her Court, she forwarded the present reference which is under consideration.
At the outset, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
Rule 1209 of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, which reads as under :
& Anr. passed in Crl. M.C. No.689/2017 and Crl. M.M.
No.2923/2017. Learned counsel further submitted that on 02.07.2019 the Investigating Officer went to Cochin, Kerala to verify the medical documents, despite the fact that court had taken a strong exception.
On 14.11.2019, the Crime Branch officials were barred by a court order to verify the facts by visiting Cochin, Kerala personally without the permission of the court. It is further submitted in the application that no instructions were received from the prosecution branch for filing an appeal / revision against the custody parole which was constantly granted to the accused. Finally a proposal dated
25.11.2019 was moved by the investigating agency against the order dated 22.11.2019 which was cleared by the prosecution branch but is still pending with the Law Department, GNCTD for approval of the competent authority. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-04, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi reads as under:-
“This Court has failed to understand as to what is the role of Special CP, if the officer of Crime Branch wanted to verify the medical documents, then this Court could have been informed and approach for the same. Earlier also the doctors was threatened by the previous Crime branch officers. Now against same modus operand has been adopted. This Court has failed to understand as to what is the personal interest of officer of Crime branch in this matter. They are dis-obeying the orders of this Court.”
He further submitted that the accused has obtained an order dated 15.10.2019 from the Madras High Court whereby his custody parole was extended for five more days which stood expired on
13.12.2019. He further submitted that a proposal for filing an SLP against the order of Madras High Court is underway.
Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) submitted that on 19.12.2019, he had without hesitation taken responsibility on himself for the inaction of the State and in the interest of justice submitted that he would not stand in the way of the court if a CBI inquiry was initiated. He now submits that the facts stated today in the application for modification were not brought to his notice yesterday. Even today he submits that the erring officials should be taken to task and the order be modified to the extent that an inquiry be conducted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi as far as the police officials are concerned and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD be directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring Jail authorities.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the detenue states that though he was aware of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, he was not aware that there was a prescribed time limit of 6 (six) hours for custody parole. He prays that the said fact be incorporated in the amended order.
Heard. Since the present criminal reference is pending consideration before this Court and now fixed for arguments on
20.01.2020, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated
19.12.2019 to the extent that instead of a CBI inquiry at this stage the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall conduct an inquiry with respect to observation made by this court in order dated 19.12.2019 against the erring police officials and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD shall conduct an inquiry against the erring jail officials in terms of order dated 19.12.2019.
Accordingly, the modification as sought above is allowed. The rest of the directions contained in order dated 19.12.2019 shall remain the same. Application stands disposed of. The order dated 19th December, 2019 shall now read as under:-
“% ORDER
19.12.2019 Present Criminal Reference under Section 395(2)
Cr.P.C., has been received from Special Judge, (PC Act)
(ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi on the following issues: -
“Q.1 If an accused is in custody in more than one case and the concerned trial courts are more than one, then whether the accused is required to obtain custody parole from each and every concerned court or the accused can move to any one court of his choice for seeking custody parole?
Q.2 Maximum duration in which the custody parole can be granted to an under-trail?
Q.3 In case custody parole application is moved to only one of the concerned court then whether any permission is required from the other concerned courts before sending the under-trial on custody parole?
Q.4 In case, permission is not required from the other concerned courts, then whether the Jail
Superintendent or accused should give intimation to the other concerned courts regarding sending the under-trial on the custody parole?”
The relevant facts of the present reference are that the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar is in judicial custody in case FIR No.186/2017 registered at Police
Station Crime Branch and FIR No.166/2017 registered at
Police Station Crime Branch both pending at Tis Hazari
Courts and also in FIR No.56/2017 registered at Police
Station Crime Branch pending at Rouse Avenue District
Court.
The accused moved an application seeking custody parole in case FIR No. 166/2017 before learned Additional
Sessions Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2019. Since then the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar is on custody parole which has been extended from time to time i.e. on
17.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 10.10.2019, 02.11.2019 and lastly on 22.11.2019 till 14.12.2019.
The custody parole granted to the accused vide last order dated 22.11.2019, came to an end on 14.12.2019. The accused moved a Bail Application No. 3089/2019 before
HIGH COURT OF DELHI which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2019.
The accused was facing trial in case FIR No.
186/2017 before the court of Ms. Kiran Bansal, Special
Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01), Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi and was not produced before her on the date fixed.
Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) through present criminal reference, has submitted that the accused was granted custody parole by the order of learned
ASJ-04, 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 till
14.12.2019 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-
04, West District, Tihar Jail vide order dated 29.11.2019 had directed that the Jail Superintendent should not produce the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar 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 3rd
Battalion for not producing the accused before her Court, she forwarded the present reference which is under consideration.
At the outset, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
Rule 1209 of the Delhi Prison Rules 2018, which reads as under :
“1209. Under-trial prisoners are not eligible for regular parole and furlough, however, may be released on custody Parole, that too by the order of the concerned trial court. It is clarified that where an appeal of a convict against conviction is pending before the High Court, regular parole will not be granted since the convict can seek appropriate orders from the High Court.” At the same time, Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018 deals with the custody parole, which reads as under:-
“1203. Custody Parole” may be granted to the
convict by an order in writing, issued by the
Superintendent Prison and to the under trial prisoners
by the trial court concerned, for a period of not more
than six hours, excluding the time taken to reach the
destination and return to Prison, in the following
eventualities:
i. Death of a family member; ii. Marriage of a family member; iii. Serious illness of a family member or iv. Any other emergency circumstances with the approval of DIG (Range) of prisons. Note: The prisoners who have been convicted by the trial court may avail custody parole from prison authorities though their appeals are pending before the higher courts.” Further, in Election Commission of India vs
Mukhtar Ansari, reported in 2017 SCC online Del 7199, it has been held that custody parole cannot be a substitute for grant of bail and cannot be extended for long periods or for daily visits. Germane portion of the judgment is extracted below:
“32. After a person is arrested and produced before the Court, thereafter he is in the custody of Court i.e.
'custodia legis'. Even the Superintendent, Jail or the
Police Officer taking to and for the prisoner to the
Court holds the custody of the prisoner on behalf of the Court. By the impugned order no bail has been granted to the respondent No.1 and the respondent
No.1 was directed to be in the custody of the Court to be held by the officers of State as directed. The custody of the prisoner away from the prison or the
Court to any other place cannot be shifted except for a short period and only to meet emergent situations like death in the family, or to go to hospital or marriage of a child or sibling etc. The same cannot extend for long periods and for daily visits and cannot be substitute of a grant of bail. By passing the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge without granting temporary bail has passed an order as effective as that.”
As per Rule 1209 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, an undertrial can be granted custody parole by the concerned trial court. However, if the undertrial is in custody in more than one cases and there are more than one concerned trial courts, then Rule 1209 is silent as to whether the undertrial should obtain custody parole from each and every concerned court or an order from one court would suffice.
As per Rule 1203, it is clear that an undertrial prisoner can be granted custody parole by the trial court concerned in case of an exigency for a period of not more than 6 hours excluding the time taken to reach the destination and return to the prison in the eventualities as mentioned in the rule.
It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the Court where the proceedings of the FIR No. 186/2017 was pending trial, the learned Presiding Officer ordered the DCP, 3rd
Battalion to produce the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar before her Court failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated against the Investigating Officer as well as DCP
3rd Battalion and the matter would be referred to the Hon'ble
High Court.
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 accused in the present case, astonishingly has been on custody parole from 05.07.2019 which was in gross violation of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and law pertaining to the custody parole.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, at the outset, admits that he appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -04, West District, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi, but he had no knowledge of Delhi
Prison Rules, 2018 pertaining to Rule of 6 hours. Learned counsel has made a passing reference to an order dated
15.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P.
No. 33838/2019 and Crl. M.P. No. 18681/2019, according to which his custody parole was extended till 20.12.2019.
However, learned counsel on instructions submits that the accused is voluntarily willing to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, forthwith.
The statement of learned Counsel for the accused is contrary to the record as perusal of the order dated
10.10.2019 clearly mentions that the Counsel for the accused had relied upon Rule 1208 and 1209 of the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018.
Strangely enough the State failed to challenge the order dated 05.07.2019 and the subsequent orders dated
17.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 10.10.2019, 02.11.2019 and lastly on 22.11.2019 and no action was taken by the concerned authorities. Learned Special Court who was dealing with FIR No. 186/2017 was constrained to issue notice to DCP 3rd
Battalion for not producing the accused before her Court for trial in case bearing FIR No. 186/2017.
Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) without hesitation admitted that the State has behaved irresponsibly and failed to take any action for the past six months and remained silent spectator for the reasons best known to them and there was inaction on their part, which was in gross violation of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 as well as settled legal position. He further submitted that he would not stand in the way if the Court directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct an inquiry against the erring police officials and if the Chief Secretary, GNCT Delhi was directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring jail officials.
Having scrutinised the entire material available on record, we deem it appropriate to direct the State to take the accused in custody forthwith and sent him to the concerned jail and the Commissioner of Police is directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring police officials and the Chief
Secretary, GNCT Delhi is directed to conduct inquiry against the erring jail officials 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.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge -04, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi also needs to explain his conduct in granting the custody parole vide order dated 05.07.2019 and extension thereof on various dates.
Registry is directed to place this order before the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side for taking action against Shri Virender Kumar Goyal, Additional
Sessions Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari Delhi.
List for arguments on 20.01.2020.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the concerned parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.”
Registry is directed to place this order before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice.
Copy of this order be sent to all the concerned authorities including Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
Copy of the order be also given Dasti under the signature of
MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 20, 2019
SU/
“32. After a person is arrested and produced before the Court, thereafter he is in the custody of Court i.e.
'custodia legis'. Even the Superintendent, Jail or the
Police Officer taking to and for the prisoner to the
Court holds the custody of the prisoner on behalf of the Court. By the impugned order no bail has been granted to the respondent No.1 and the respondent
No.1 was directed to be in the custody of the Court to be held by the officers of State as directed. The custody of the prisoner away from the prison or the
Court to any other place cannot be shifted except for a short period and only to meet emergent situations like death in the family, or to go to hospital or marriage of a child or sibling etc. The same cannot extend for long periods and for daily visits and cannot be substitute of a grant of bail. By passing the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge without granting temporary bail has passed an order as effective as that.”
As per Rule 1209 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, an undertrial can be granted custody parole by the concerned trial court. However, if the undertrial is in custody in more than one cases and there are more than one concerned trial courts, then Rule 1209 is silent as to whether the undertrial should obtain custody parole from each and every concerned court or an order from one court would suffice.
As per Rule 1203, it is clear that an undertrial prisoner can be granted custody parole by the trial court concerned in case of an exigency for a period of not more than 6 hours excluding the time taken to reach the destination and return to the prison in the eventualities as mentioned in the rule.
It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the Court where the proceedings of the FIR No. 186/2017 was pending trial, the learned Presiding Officer ordered the DCP, 3rd
Battalion to produce the accused Sukesh @ Sukash Chandrashekhar before her Court failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated against the Investigating Officer as well as DCP
3rd Battalion and the matter would be referred to the Hon'ble
High Court.
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 accused in the present case, astonishingly has been on custody parole from 05.07.2019 which was in gross violation of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and law pertaining to the custody parole.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, at the outset, admits that he appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge -04, West District, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi, but he had no knowledge of Delhi
Prison Rules, 2018 pertaining to Rule of 6 hours. Learned counsel has made a passing reference to an order dated
15.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P.
No. 33838/2019 and Crl. M.P. No. 18681/2019, according to which his custody parole was extended till 20.12.2019.
However, learned counsel on instructions submits that the accused is voluntarily willing to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, forthwith.
The statement of learned Counsel for the accused is contrary to the record as perusal of the order dated
10.10.2019 clearly mentions that the Counsel for the accused had relied upon Rule 1208 and 1209 of the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018.
Strangely enough the State failed to challenge the order dated 05.07.2019 and the subsequent orders dated
17.08.2019, 30.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 10.10.2019, 02.11.2019 and lastly on 22.11.2019 and no action was taken by the concerned authorities. Learned Special Court who was dealing with FIR No. 186/2017 was constrained to issue notice to DCP 3rd
Battalion for not producing the accused before her Court for trial in case bearing FIR No. 186/2017.
Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Crl.) without hesitation admitted that the State has behaved irresponsibly and failed to take any action for the past six months and remained silent spectator for the reasons best known to them and there was inaction on their part, which was in gross violation of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 as well as settled legal position. He further submitted that he would not stand in the way if the Court directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct an inquiry against the erring police officials and if the Chief Secretary, GNCT Delhi was directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring jail officials.
Having scrutinised the entire material available on record, we deem it appropriate to direct the State to take the accused in custody forthwith and sent him to the concerned jail and the Commissioner of Police is directed to conduct an inquiry against the erring police officials and the Chief
Secretary, GNCT Delhi is directed to conduct inquiry against the erring jail officials 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.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge -04, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi also needs to explain his conduct in granting the custody parole vide order dated 05.07.2019 and extension thereof on various dates.
Registry is directed to place this order before the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side for taking action against Shri Virender Kumar Goyal, Additional
Sessions Judge-04, West District, Tis Hazari Delhi.
List for arguments on 20.01.2020.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the concerned parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.”
Registry is directed to place this order before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice.
Copy of this order be sent to all the concerned authorities including Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
Copy of the order be also given Dasti under the signature of
MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 20, 2019
SU/