Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 79
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, JJ.
Abdul Rashid Sheikh - Appellant
versus
NIA - Respondent
CRL.A. 299 of 2025
Decided on : 28-03-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikhyat Oberoi, Ms. Nishita Gupta, Mr. Shivam Prakash, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Jagriti Pandey, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Ms. Vasundhara, Ms. Sana Singh, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Mr. Vinayak Gautam and Mr. Hosain Khawaja, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, ASG and Mr. Akshai Malik, SPP with Mr. Khawar Saleem and Mr. Akash Kavade, Advocates for NIA Mr. B. B. Pathak, Addl. SP for NIA
The court ruled that conditions imposed on an applicant in custody must be fair and consistent, especially regarding financial obligations for attending sessions.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Modification of order - The applicant sought modification of a prior order requiring him to bear travel expenses to attend a Parliamentary Session while in custody. The applicant argued inability to pay the substantial amount required for travel arrangements. The court noted the applicant had previously attended sessions without such a condition. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The opposing counsel argued that the applicant's request was a misuse of legal process due to serious charges faced. The court considered the applicant's readiness to pay half of the required amount. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, in custody, was required to pay Rs. 8,74,416/- for travel to attend a Parliamentary Session. He had already deposited Rs. 1,45,736/- but could not afford the total amount.
Findings of Court:
The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 2,91,472/- to attend the session.
Issues: Whether the condition to bear travel expenses was appropriate given the applicant's custody status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fairness in imposing conditions on an applicant in custody, especially when similar conditions were not previously applied.
Result: The applicant was allowed to attend the Parliamentary Session upon depositing the specified amount.
ORDER :
CRL. M.A. 9483/2025 (modification of order dated 25th March, 2025)
1. The instant application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant seeking modification of the order dated 25th March, 2025.
2. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that vide order dated 25th March, 2025, this Court hadgranted permission to the applicant to attend the remaining Parliamentary Session “in custody” scheduled between 26th March, 2025 and 4th April, 2025 subject to various conditions as imposed by this Court.
3. It is submitted that one of the condition as mentioned in paragraph no. 24.7 in the said order was that the expense for the aforesaid travel and other arrangements shall be borne by the appellant/applicant.
4. It is submitted that the applicant received an email from the concerned Jail authorities on 26th March, 2025 that the applicant is required to pay approx. Rs. 1,45,736/- (Rupees One Lakh, Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Only) each day for travel and related arrangements i.e., the total sum of Rs. 8,74,416/- for 06 days.
5. It is submitted that since the applicant is in custody, he is unable to arrange the aforesaid substantial amount. Learned senior counsel also relied on the order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion and submitted that, while allowing the applicant to attend the Parliamentary Session on earlier occasion vide order dated 10th February, 2025, no such similar condition was imposed on him for requiring him to bear the cost of travel or other arrangement. It is submitted that since the applicant is not able to deposit the amount as asked by the Jail authority, he is not able to attend the remaining Parliament session as per the order passed by this Court.
6. It is also informed to this Court that the applicant has already deposited Rs. 1,45,736/- (Rupees One Lakh, Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Only) and the receipt of the same is appended as Annexure A-9 to the instant application. Therefore, it is prayed that the condition mentioned in paragraph no. 24.7 may be deleted by this Court.
7. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.
8. Issue notice. Learned ASG for the NIA, appearing on advance notice, accepted notice and vehemently opposed the instant application.
9. Learned ASG for the NIA submitted that the instant application is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is under trial and is facing very serious charges under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Therefore, he may be directed to bear the expenses for the travel and other arrangements to attend the remaining Parliamentary Session “in custody”.
10. In support of his arguments, he relied on the order dated 28th January, 2025 passed in the case of Mohd Tahir Hussain vs. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP (Crl.) No. 856/2025, and referred condition/direction no. 2 of that order, namely the condition imposed upon the petitioner therein, in which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court imposed the travel expense of Rs. 2,07,429/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine) per day, for the travel and other arrangements for parole „in custody‟, which was half of the amount demanded by the State in that case.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned ASG for the NIA prayed for four weeks‟ time to file reply to the instant application. Let the same be filed within four weeks as prayed.
12. At this juncture, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted, on instructions, that out of total sum of Rs. 8,74,416/-, the applicant is ready to deposit 50 % of the total cost. He further prayed that out of Rs. 8,74,416/-, the already deposited sum of Rs. 1,45,736/- (One Lakh, Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Six Only) be excluded for calculating 50% of
