Delhi High Court Denies Parole To Convicted Terrorist Feroz Ahmed Bhatt Citing Security Concerns, Permits One-Time VC With Parents
The Delhi High Court has declined parole to Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist who has served over two decades in prison and had applied for temporary release to travel to Jammu and Kashmir.The court cited concerns that his presence in the region could pose a threat to broader security interests. Despite the convict's request for parole to visit his parents and marry, the court...
The Delhi High Court has declined parole to Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist who has served over two decades in prison and had applied for temporary release to travel to Jammu and Kashmir.
The court cited concerns that his presence in the region could pose a threat to broader security interests. Despite the convict's request for parole to visit his parents and marry, the court ruled against it. Instead, the court directed the jail superintendent to facilitate a one-time video call between Bhatt and his parents.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, opined, “the factum of the 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 organization 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,” the judge said.
Bhatt sought to be released on parole for a period of six weeks to reconnect social ties with the society and his family.
As per the factual matrix of the case, Bhatt, who is identified as a member of the terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), was arrested and had been in judicial custody since 11.09.2003. He was convicted for committing offence under Sections 3(3)/3(5)/4/20 of Prevention of Terrorism Act and Sections 121/121A/122/123 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 5 of Explosives Substances Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. His conviction was upheld by both Delhi High Court as well as by the Apex Court.
Bhatt stated that he was in judicial custody for more than 20 years and was presently about 44 years of age. He further stated that he now 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, as he also wished to meet his old aged parents.
The counsel representing Bhatt contended that he has remained incarcerated without any form of release—be it bail, interim bail, parole, or furlough—for over two decades since his initial arrest. Despite this prolonged period of confinement, Bhatt has demonstrated exemplary conduct during his time in prison, thus making a strong case for the granting of parole. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that the extraordinary circumstance of Bhatt's continuous imprisonment for the past 20 years necessitates the exercise of discretion in his favor.
The State's counsel opposed the plea, arguing that in cases involving terror activities and waging war against the country, parole should not be granted to the convicts. The counsel pointed out a case where a co-accused who was granted parole absconded and joined a terrorist organization.
The court in its ruling noted that 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.
The Court took note of the fact that the co-accused in the case itself i.e. Noor Mohammad Tantry was released on parole, however, instead of returning to jail after the expiry period of his parole, he had joined a terrorist organization regarding which an FIR was also filed under Sections 18/20/38 of UAPA.
He was thereafter neutralized in an encounter with security forces on 25.12.2017 at Samboora regarding which another FIR was registered under Section 307 of RPC and Section 7/25 A.
The Court further took note of a report which was received from the Police Department, Avantipura, Jammu and Kashmir, where Bhatt wanted to reside and also mentioned that there was a reasonable apprehension that if he is released, he will abscond and join terror ranks.
The report further stated that Bhatt's release on parole will be detrimental to the overall security scenario in the area.
The Court observed, “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,” the Court added while dismissing the petition.
Case Title: Feroz Ahmed Bhatt Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 541