Neelam Azad’s plea against police remand

 Neelam Azad’s plea against police remand
Spread the love

 Neelam Azad’s plea against police remand

The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed the plea of Neelam Azad, an accused in the Parliament security breach case, who had claimed that her police remand is illegal as she was not allowed to consult a ‘legal practitioner of her choice’ to defend her in proceedings before the trial court.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed Azad’s plea after it was informed that she had already moved a bail application before the trial court.

 Neelam Azad’s plea against police remand

“Admittedly qua the relief sought in present petition, the petitioner has already moved an application before the trial court. Therefore, present petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly,” the bench said.

Azad’s counsel submitted that they have filed a habeas corpus plea and argued that the remand order was passed “without application of mind” and is violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Meanwhile, the Delhi Police’s counsel argued that Azad’s petition was not maintainable.

Festive offer

“Their police custody ends on January 5. They have already moved a bail application before the trial court. You can’t ask for two similar reliefs, one before the trial court and the other before the high court,” the police’s counsel said, adding that the FIR contains provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Azad’s counsel said that his client was produced before the trial court on December 14, 29 hours from the date of her arrest on December 13.

Azad had sought a writ of habeas corpus for her production before the high court as well as an order to “set her at liberty”. Her plea claimed that not allowing her to consult a lawyer of her choice amounted to a violation of her fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Azad was sent to police custody till January 5 by the trial court.

“Upon her arrest, the petitioner’s family wasn’t informed. It was informed only on the evening of 14.12.2023. Further, she wasn’t permitted to meet any person including advocates which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Even at the court, a single DLSA (Delhi Legal Services Authority) counsel was appointed to all the accused persons without giving them any choice among counsel,” the plea submits.

It further stated that the December 21 remand order is “illegal” and violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India which “mandates the accused person to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice whereas in the present case, the petitioner’s advocate wasn’t permitted to take instructions and defend the petitioner prior to the disposal of the remand application”.

As per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

On December 22, a single-judge bench of the HC had stayed till January 4 the execution of the trial court’s order directing the Delhi Police to supply a copy of the FIR to Azad.