Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

"High Court Has Committed Wrong" Supreme Court Takes Objection To HC's Order Granting Parole To A UAPA Convict When SLP Was Pending Before SC,

Srishti Ojha
11 Jun 2021 2:05 PM GMT
High Court Has Committed Wrong Supreme Court Takes Objection To HCs Order Granting Parole To A UAPA Convict When SLP Was Pending Before SC,

Supreme Court on Friday took objection to grant of parole to a UAPA Convict by the High Court of Rajasthan when the SLP was still pending before the Apex Court.

A Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah made the observation while hearing an application filed by UAPA Convict, Arun Kumar Jain who is presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur, seeking grant of bail for three months on ground of his father's health.

The present application had been filed in a special leave petition pending before the Supreme Court against the Rajasthan High Court's final impugned judgment dated 30th October 2018.

"When this SLP is pending before this Court, How has the High Court released you on parole? We take strong objection to this. You should have come here." Justice Shah said.

While refusing to entertain the bail plea, the Bench also hauled up the Applicant for approaching the High Court for parole when a Special Leave Petition was pending before the Supreme Court.

"You couldn't have gone to the High Court for parole when your SLP was pending here, and this Court had released you on interim bail earlier" Justice Shah said.

"Earlier we released him for some time thereafter he surrendered. Knowing full well that we would not have extended the time, He approached the High Court and got the parole? The High Court has committed wrong" Justice Shah said.

During the hearing, Adv Aarif Ali Khan appearing for the applicant urged the Court to grant bail on humanitarian ground as the Applicant's father is really unwell and critical, and the applicant is his father's only son. He added that the Top Court had on the same grounds earlier granted bail for one month.

"Then you should have come to this Court, and not have gone to High Court for Parole." the Bench said.

Calling the Applicant's conduct " not bona fide", the Bench observed that applicant's application for extension of surrendering was rejected by the Supreme court on December 18th 2021 and therefore he went to the High Court.

"You could not and ought not have gone to the High Court." Justice Shah said.

The Applicant Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had observed that the applicant may approach the High Court. Justice Shah however objected to the statement and said "This court did not say that go to the High Court. You are making incorrect statement."

"My conduct has been good. My Lords my father has been died" the Counsel further said.

"First you said he is unwell, now you are saying he has died. You take a stand first." Justice Banerjee said.

"My incorrect statement and I withdraw my statement." Adv Khan said.

" That's why you are not entitled for any relief as you yourself are not correct" Justice Shah said

The Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan opposed the bail and stated that the applicant has been convicted twice by concurrent Courts and allegations against him are very serious. He added that even when the matter was listed before Supreme Court for disposal, a letter seeking adjournment was circulated from the applicant's side.

It may be noted that the present applicant was granted interim bail last year by the Supreme Court on grounds of his father's illness who is 85 years old and permanently blind.

The applicant was convicted and sentenced by Sessions Court, Jaipur in 2017 under Section(s) 13, 18, 18-B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and was sentenced to simple life imprisonment. His conviction was later set aside by the High Court and his sentence was substituted from life imprisonment to 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

The Rajasthan High Court had granted him the first regular parole for a period of 20 days on 11th Feb 2021, which was further extended twice viewing the health of the petitioner's father.

Next Story
Share it