Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 293
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH – Appellant
Versus
NIA – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-233/2025
Legislators do not have an enforceable right to attend Parliament while under lawful detention; however, custody parole may be granted under exceptional circumstances.
Headnote:
(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 - Criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India - Petitioner arrested in connection with funding terrorist activities - Petition for interim bail/custody parole to attend Parliamentary sessions - Court held that legislators have no enforceable right to attend Parliament while under lawful detention - Custody parole granted for two days with conditions. (Paras 1, 35)
(B) Right to personal liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Absence of a forum for redressal amounts to violation of fundamental rights - Timely delivery of justice is part of human rights. (Paras 15, 33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 09.08.2019 under various sections of IPC and UAPA for involvement in a conspiracy to fund terrorist activities. He sought interim bail to attend Parliamentary sessions, citing the lack of clarity regarding the jurisdiction of the Special NIA Court. (Paras 1, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the lack of a designated forum for the petitioner’s bail applications and granted custody parole for two days to attend Parliament, subject to strict conditions. (Paras 35, 36)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner has a right to attend Parliament while in custody and the implications of the absence of a designated court for MPs/MLAs. (Paras 24, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that being a Parliamentarian does not grant an exception from lawful detention, and the absence of a designated court does not violate the right to personal liberty, but granted custody parole in light of the peculiar circumstances. (Paras 25, 28)
Result: Custody parole granted for two days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner arrested under uapa (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's request for custody parole (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's discussion on jurisdiction (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. court's view on legislative rights (Para 25) |
| 5. court's ruling on detention (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. custody parole granted (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
CRL.M.A. 2972/2025 (by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking interim bail and in alternative custody parole
1. The present petitioner was arrested on 09.08.2019 in connection with the case registered by NIA as RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI dated 30.05.2017 under Sections 120B/121/121A IPC and Sections 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 38 , 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. The case of the prosecution is that based on credible information that Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Amir of Jammat-ud-Dawah and secessionist and separatist leaders, including members / cadres of the Hurriyat Conference, have been acting in connivance with active militants of proscribed terrorist organizations viz. Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Dukhtaran-e-Millat, Lashkar- e-Taiba (LeT), and other terrorist organizations / associations / gangs for raising, receiving and collecting funds domestically and abroad through various illegal channels, including hawala, for funding separatist and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The investigation revealed that various terrorist organizations viz. Jammu Kashmir Liberal Front (JKLF), HM, LeT, in connivance with various secessionist groups particularly the APHC / Hurriyat Conference and its constituents funded by Pakistan and its agencies and terror groups have entered into a criminal conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India. Hurriyat leaders and their supporters were and are following the ideology of ‘freedom’ i.e. secession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India.
4. During the course of investigation, role of the petitioner surfaced and it transpired that he was also involved in the crime and, accordingly, he was arraigned as an accused and arrested.
5. Coming to the present petition, the same has been filed seeking following reliefs:
“A. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature thereof, directing the Court of Sh. Chandrajit Singh, Ld. ASJ - 03 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (special designated NIA court) to expeditiously pronounce the Order on the second regular bail application of the Petitioner dated 20.08.2024 in case bearing NIA No. 2 of 2018, titled as NIA v. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed & Ors., arising out of FIR bearing No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI dated 30.05.2017 and setting aside the Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Ld. ASJ;
B. In alternative to Prayer A, treat the instant Petition as the second bail application, and adjudicate and grant regular bail to the Petitioner who has been arraigned as Accused No. 18 in case bearing NIA No. 2 of 2018, titled as “NIA v. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed & Ors.”, arising out of FIR bearing No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI dated 30.05.2017, on such terms as the Hon’ble Court may direct.”
6. The filing of present petition has been necessitated by the fact that although the petitioner’s bail application was considered and heard by the learned Special Designated NIA Court but the order thereon was not pronounced by the said court assigning the reason that albeit the court is a Special Designated NIA Court, however, it does not have jurisdiction to try the said criminal case, as it is only the Special Designated Court of MPs/MLAs which has the jurisdiction to try the same.
7. For the sake of completeness, it may be stated that the said Special Designated NIA Court of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 21.11.2024 had placed the matter before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge observing that as per
