The Delhi High Court has ordered CBI inquiry against jail and police officials here over the continued custody parole, for over five months, of an undertrial facing trial in three different cases.
A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also sought explanation from an Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari Court here for “his conduct in granting the custody parole” and extending it through subsequent orders.
Not more than 6 hours
As per Rule 1203 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, an undertrial prisoner can be granted custody parole by a trial court in case of an exigency for a period of not more than six hours, excluding the time taken to reach the destination and return to the prison.
The High Court’s direction came on a criminal reference made by Special Judge Kiran Bansal at Rouse Avenue District Courts here seeking clarity on whether an accused, who is in custody in more than one case is required to obtain custody parole from each and every court concerned or the accused can move to anyone court of his choice for seeking custody parole.
Special Judge Bansal submitted that one accused Sukesh alias Sukash Chandrashekhar, who is facing trial in three different cases, in three different courts, including her’s, was not produced before her court on the date fixed.
The Judge submitted that the accused was granted custody parole by the order of an Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari Court but he failed to seek permission from her court. She further said no such information was received either from the accused or from the Jail Superintendent concerned.
The High Court said: “The accused in the present case, astonishingly has been on custody parole from July 05, 2019, which was in gross violation of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and law pertaining to the custody parole. Strangely enough, the State failed to challenge the order dated July 05, 2019, and the subsequent orders...and no action was taken by the concerned authorities.”
It noted that if one court had issued an order of custody parole, it was incumbent on the Director-General Prison or Jail Superintendent to inform the other two courts about the absence of the accused, obtain the next date for production of the accused.
Next hearing on Jan. 20
The High Court directed the State government to take the accused in custody forthwith and sent him to the concerned jail and posted the case for further hearing on January 20.
