Prisoners Convicted For Terror Activities Must Not Be Granted Parole Generally: Delhi HC Denies Parole To JeM Terrorist, Directs Arrangement Of VC With Parents
The Delhi High Court has denied parole to a convict belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terrorist organization and directed arrangement of video call with his parents.
The convict/terrorist named Feroz Ahmed Bhatt had filed a writ petition seeking issuance of writ, order, and/or direction for releasing him on parole for a period of six weeks to reconnect social ties with the society and his family.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “… this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner who seeks parole as his family is looking for a suitable match for him and to maintain social ties, has been convicted of offences relating to terrorist activities and waging war against the country, by the learned Trial Court, and his conviction and sentence were upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. … As per the Rule 1211 of Delhi Prison Rules, the prisoners who are convicted for sedition and terrorist activities, should not be granted parole except in discretion of the competent authority and in special circumstances.”
Advocate Naiem Jahan Heena appeared for the petitioner/convict while ASC Rahul Tyagi appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
Feroz has been in judicial custody since 2003 and was convicted for committing offence under Sections 3(3), 3(5), 4, and 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002; Sections 121, 121A, 122, and 123 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and his conviction was upheld by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
The petitioner stated that he was in judicial custody for more than 20 years and was aged 44 years. He further stated that he wanted to get married and for the purpose of getting married, since his parents were looking for a bride for him, he be released on parole. He also said that he wished to meet his old aged parents.
The High Court in the above context noted, “This Court takes note of the fact that the co-accused in this case itself i.e. Noor Mohammad Tantry was released on parole, however, instead of returning to jail after expiry period of his parole, he had joined terrorist organization regarding which case FIR No. 55/2017, under Sections 18/20/38 of ULA (P) Act was registered at P.S. Tral, Jammu & Kashmir. He was thereafter neutralized in an encounter with security forces on 25.12.2017 at Samboora regarding which an FIR No. 219/2017, under Section 307 of RPC and Section 7/25 A. Act was registered at Police Station Pampore, Jammu & Kashmir.”
The Court added that there is a reasonable apprehension that in case the petitioner is released, he will abscond and join terrorist ranks and further his release on parole will be detrimental to the overall security of the area in the larger security interest.
“This Court is of the opinion that the factum of petitioner being convicted in a heinous offence and there being an actual apprehension regarding his presence in the area being detrimental to the larger security interest, coupled with the fact that one of his co-accused had again joined a terrorist organisation after being released on parole and was later neutralized in an encounter, are the factors which would come in the path of the petitioner’s application for parole. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of parole”, it remarked.
However, the Court took note of the fact that the petitioner expressed his desire to meet his parents, who he had not met and who cannot travel to Delhi. It, thus, said that the court is faced with a situation where it has to balance the interest of the State and the Country on the one hand, and the longing of an accused to see his parents, who are unable to travel to Delhi.
“This Court does not overlook the fact that as per nominal roll, his conduct in the jail has been satisfactory over the last 20 years, except one punishment in the year 2010. Considering the same, this Court directs that the Superintendent Jail concerned will make one time arrangement for the video call of the present petitioner with his parents, in case he so desires in writing, in order to provide him an opportunity to at least talk to his parents and see them virtually, if not in person. This may to some extent bring solace to him as a son that he could see his parents and could speak to them even if virtually”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and denied parole to the convict.
Cause Title- Feroz Ahmed Bhatt v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3497)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Naiem Jahan Heena and Raj Kumar.
Respondents: ASC Rahul Tyagi
