Prem Prakash Singh @ Munna Bajrangi v. State (CBI)

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 359/2017 PREM PRAKASH SINGH @ MUNNA BAJRANGI ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Jitender Singh, Ms. Vaishali Sharma, Advs.

versus STATE (CBI) ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 01.03.2017 Crl.M.A. 3511/2017 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. BAIL APPLN. 359/2017 1.

Notice. Learned Spl. PP for the CBI accepts notice. 2.

Prayer in the present petition is:

"a) grant custody parole in favour of the petitioner i.e. from 28.2.17 to 08.03.17 to the satisfaction of Hon'ble Special Judge, CBI, 09 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No.02 of 2013 pertaining to crime No.589 of 2005 at PS Bhanwarkol, Distt. Gazipur, U.P., FIR No.RC/8(S)06/CBI/SCB-II, New Delhi State of U.P. Vs. Azaz UI Haq;"

3.

The co-accused in the above-noted FIR Mukhtar Ansari was granted custody parole by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which order was challenged by the Election Commission of India before this Court in BAIL APPLN. 359/2017

Crl.M.C. 689/2017. This Court has already held that the term custody parole used by the learned Trial Court is misnomer. It is also well settled that the concession of taking a person in custody away from the prison can only be for a very limited purpose like treatment or death in the family or any such emergent condition. What cannot be granted directly cannot be granted indirectly. In the garb of custody parole the Court cannot pass an order akin to a temporary bail which has neither been sought nor granted. 4.

In view of the decision of this Court in 'Election Commission of India Vs. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr.' in Crl.M.C. 689/2017 decided on 27th February, 2017, the present petition is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MARCH 01, 2017 'ga'

BAIL APPLN. 359/2017