The Supreme Court today allowed Bangalore blast accused and People’s Democratic Party Chairman Abdul Nazar Maudany , lodged in a Bangalore jail to travel to Kerala to attend his son’s wedding.Maudany had moved the apex court after a National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on July 24 rejected his plea. The marriage is on August 9 at Thalassery.After hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan...
The Supreme Court today allowed Bangalore blast accused and People’s Democratic Party Chairman Abdul Nazar Maudany , lodged in a Bangalore jail to travel to Kerala to attend his son’s wedding.
Maudany had moved the apex court after a National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on July 24 rejected his plea. The marriage is on August 9 at Thalassery.
After hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan a bench of justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said Maudany allowed the petition and said Maudany should bear the expenses of Karnataka police for providing him security during the Kerala trip.
The Trial Court partly allowed Mr. Maudany’s application under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permitting him to visit his mother in Kerala for a week in August, but denying him permission to attend his son’s wedding.
The Petition filed through Advocate Haris Beeran contended that the Trial Court has passed the order without “application of mind” as it observed that it was not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the Apex Court’s order passed in July, 2014. It, therefore, justifies the filing of the SLP, contending that the issue at hand was, in fact, the interpretation of the Apex Court’s order.
“Since the orders of this Hon'ble Court form the edifice of the Ld. Trial Court, it would be in the interest of justice to consider the present Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution,” the Petition, thereby, contends, and goes on to pose the following questions of law for consideration by the Apex Court:
Whether the Trial Court is permitted to consider the Petitioners Application under Section 439(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure independent of this Hon'ble Courts orders dated 7.11.2014 read with 30.6.2016 in SLP(crl)No. 8084-94 of 2013?
Whether the Trial Court has passed with impugned application without application of mind in allowing the Petitioner to visit his mother and not his father despite them residing in the same house hold?”
Mr. Maudany points out that in July, 2014, the State of Kerala had given an undertaking that the trial would conclude within 4 months. With the Trial still going on, he contends that there has been a “deliberate delay” on the part of the State in order to prevent him from travelling to his home State.
The Petition further challenges the direction to Mr. Maudany to bear the cost of escorting him to Kerala. Terming this condition “absurd”, it contends, “The Respondent State of Karnataka sends a team of Police Officers on the flight with the Petitioner as well as on road whenever he goes to Kerala. The entire escort itself would cost upwards of Rs. 20 Lac. The Petitioner is no condition to pay such exorbitant amounts inasmuch as he cannot afford to.”