On 23th October, 2020(Friday), the Delhi High Court has granted 6 hours custody parole to an accused that was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, to accompany his wife for undergoing surgery.
A division bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi and Justice JR Midha was hearing a plea seeking interim bail for one month to the accused who is charged under Section 120-B IPC and 17 & 21 of UAP Act. The appellant was represented by Advocate Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir and Advocate Mr. Prabhav Ralli.
However, the appellant seek interim bail on the grounds that his wife had to undergo surgery for ‘potential hysterectomy’ because of uterine fibroids. And, the appellant had sought bail for a period of 30 days so that he is available to organise funds, prepare his wife for surgery, accompany her at the time of surgery and to organise supply of blood and other ancillary activities related to surgery.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Sharma with Senior Public Prosecutor Abhishek Kumar Bagaria has opposed the appeal on the ground that the earlier order of bail was rightly dismissed and that there was no irregularity of illegality in the order dated 6th July, 2020. The SPP also stated that the appellant involved in a serious offence of transferring funds by Hawala on various occasions as per instructions of Dubai based Pakistani national Mohammed Kamran, connected with Shahid Mehmood, Deputy Chief of Falal-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF), Pakistan, which is a front NGO of terror group LeT.
Moreover, the counsel for the Appellant urged that the surgery to be performed upon his wife is a serious one and some relatives were not residing with his family. The Counsel has further contented that, “Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that surgery of the wife of the Appellant may lead to sterility, in which case the consent and physical presence of the Appellant, being her husband, before conducting surgery is a pre-requisite in terms of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette & Ethics) Guidelines, 2002.”
Subsequently, he added that the Trial Court had also failed to appreciate that investigation of the appellant already stood completed and the entire evidence was in the nature of documents or digital evidences. “Thus, the benefit of interim bail would not prejudice or hamper the investigation or trial of the case in any manner whatsoever.”
Upon hearing the above contentions made by both the counsels, the Court has observed that as per the medical record prima facie at this stage, no major surgery is required for treating the Appellant’s wife. While rejecting the prayer of interim bail, the bench observed,
“though no case for interim bail is made out, however in the interest of justice, if the wife of the appellant undergoes surgery, the appellant is allowed custody parole for six hours (excluding the time of journey) on the date of operation of his wife so that he can meet her and be with her at the time of operation whenever the date for surgery is fixed by the doctors, which shall be verified by the Trial Court. During the custody parole, the NIA shall ensure that the police officers are deputed with him while the appellant is out of jail.”
Further the bench noted that, a system was being created vide which sleeper cells/ hide outs could be created at a later stage for carrying out an act of terrorism at appropriate time or stage. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of offence as spelled out in charge-sheet, this court is not inclined to release the Appellant on interim bail.
Case : Mohd Hussain Molani vs. National Investigation Agency (CRL.A. 370/2020)
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha & Hon’ble Rr. Justice Brijesh Sethi