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

What is the case

• When the SLP was still pending before the Apex Court, the Supreme Court took issue with the High Court of Rajasthan's award of parole to a UAPA convict.
• The statement was made by a Division Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah while hearing an appeal submitted by UAPA Convict Arun Kumar Jain, who is now imprisoned in Central Jail, Jodhpur, seeking three-month release on the grounds of his father's health.

Details of the case

• The current motion was filed in a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was filed in response to the Rajasthan High Court's final impugned judgement on October 30, 2018.
• "How has the High Court released you on parole while this SLP is pending before this Court? This is something to which we strongly object. You should've come here sooner." according to Justice Shah.
• While rejecting the Applicant's bail request, the Bench further chastised him for going to the High Court for parole while a Special Leave Petition was ongoing before the Supreme Court.
• "You couldn't have gone to the High Court for parole when your SLP was still ongoing here, and this Court had already released you on temporary bail," Justice Shah explained.
• "We had previously released him for a period of time before he surrendered. He went to the High Court and got the parole despite the fact that we would not have prolonged the time?
• The High Court made a mistake "According to Justice Shah. Adv Aarif Ali Khan, who is representing the applicant at the hearing, is his father's only son. He went on to say that the Supreme Court has previously granted bail for a month on an identical basis.

Courts Observation

• The applicant's lawyer claimed that the Supreme Court had stated that the applicant could go to the High Court. However, Justice Shah objected to the statement, saying, "This court did not say go to the High Court. You are making an incorrect statement."
• The State of Rajasthan's Counsel opposed the bail, claiming that the applicant had been convicted twice by concurrent Courts and that the allegations against him were grave. He went on to say that even when the case was brought before the Supreme Court for resolution, the applicant's side issued a letter requesting an adjournment.
• It should be mentioned that the Supreme Court granted interim release to the current applicant last year due to his father's condition, who is 85 years old and totally blind.
• The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to simple life imprisonment by the Sessions Court in Jaipur in 2017 under Sections 13, 18, 18-B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• His conviction was overturned by the High Court, and his sentence was reduced from life to 14 years of harsh imprisonment with a fine. On February 11, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court gave him his first regular parole for a period of 20 days, which was later extended twice due to his health.

What do you think about the case?