Dismissed¶34

State (through Office of Director General Prisons) v. Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025CRL.REV.P./1383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

phone call facility; e-mulakat; E-Mulakat; Telephone Mulakat; inmate communication; Rule 631 Delhi Prison Rules 2018; Superintendent Jail; DIG (Range); NOC from investigating agency/prosecuting agency; circular dated 22.04.2024; addendum dated 22.05.2024; UAAP/UAPA prisoner; offences against the State; NIA case RC No.06/2012/NIA/DLI; Patiala House Courts; ASJ-03; Tihar; Mandoli Jail; maintainability of criminal revision against trial court interim order; State through DG Prisons v. Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi; Jasmeet Singh, J.; Delhi High Court; 03.03.2025; CRL.REV.P. 1383/2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner-State; the revision petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the revisionist to pursue an appropriate remedy on the Trial Court's competence. ¶34

State (through Office of Director General Prisons) Vs Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner-State; the revision petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the revisionist to pursue an appropriate remedy on the Trial Court's competence.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1, who was already availing the E-Mulakat/Telephone Mulakat facility prior to 22.04.2024, falls within the ambit of the addendum dated 22.05.2024 (to the circular dated 22.04.2024) read with Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and may continue to avail the facility pending NOC from the investigating agency. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 falls within the ambit of Clause (b) of the addendum dated 22.05.2024, as he was already availing the facility of E-Mulakat/Telephone Mulakat prior to 22.04.2024; the NOC from the investigating agency is admittedly pending.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

For the reason that the addendum dated 22.05.2024 applies to respondent No.1, the revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

¶34

Key takeaways

The question whether the Trial Court is vested with the power to pass such orders was not required to be adjudicated in the present petition; the revisionist is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in that regard.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.), CRL.REV.P. 1383/2024, decided 03.03.2025 - State (through Office of Director General Prisons) v. Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr. Revision by the prison authorities against the order dated 21.09.2024 of the ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, in RC No.06/2012/NIA/DLI (registered under Ss. 123 and 121A IPC and Ss. 17, 18, 18B and 20 UAPA, 1967), whereby respondent No.1 was permitted to avail the phone call/e-mulakat facility pending the prison authorities' verification of the validity of his prior permission. Rule 631, Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 renders prisoners involved in offences against the State ineligible for the facility, subject to a case-specific decision by the Superintendent Jail with prior approval of the DIG (Range); the circular dated 22.04.2024 permits such inmates audio phone-call facility upon NOC/approval of the concerned prosecuting agencies; and Clause (b) of the addendum dated 22.05.2024 allows prisoners already availing the facility on or before 22.04.2024 to continue until the NOC is obtained, denied, or forfeited by misconduct. Held: respondent No.1, who was admittedly availing the facility prior to 22.04.2024 while the NOC remained pending, falls within Clause (b) of the addendum dated 22.05.2024; accordingly the revision petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. Whether the Trial Court was vested with the power to pass such an order was expressly left open, with liberty to the revisionist to avail the appropriate remedy.

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P. 1383/2024, CRL.M.A. 5532/2025, CRL.M.A. 5533/2025 STATE (THROUGH OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL PRISONS)

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP versus

¶6

ASADULLAH AKHTAR @ HADDI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Ms. Shadab Farasat, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶9

% 03.03.2025

¶10

This is a revision petition seeking to challenge the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in RC No.06/2012/NIA/DLI registered at PS NIA under Sections 123 and 121A of IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of UAPA, 1967, whereby respondent No.1 was granted permission to avail phone call/e-mulakat facility during the pendency of the decision by the prison authorities regarding the validity of the prior permission granted to respondent No.1 for availing the said facilities.

¶11

The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶12

“ In respect of present matter, in the report filed on behalf of Prison authority, it has come to notice that before transfer of applicant/ accused from one jail to another jail, inmate was availing phone/emulakaat facility but that approval later is stated to be not in terms of rules. Be that as it may, the Prison Authority are at liberty to do verification etc in respect of said permission but pending decision on said process, it is directed that phone facility/e-mulakaat facility already availed be restored. Mr. Rajiv has informed that he is DIG (Range), Tihar and concerned DIG (Range), Mandoli Jail. Hence, copy of this order be sent to DIG (Range), Mandoli Jail. Copy of order be given dasti to Law Officer present in court. ”

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:37

¶15

Thereafter, the order was clarified on 08.10.2024 and reads as under:“ In respect of order dated 21.09.2024, it is clarified that it is only an interim order. The corrigendum order dated 22.05.2024 provides for continuous of phone facility in case the same was used by applicant/accused prior to 22.04.2024. There are submissions on behalf of jail administration that during the period prior to 22.04.2024, though the permission was not appropriate. Thus, there is a tacit admission that facility was used by accused. Hence, said Corrigendum dated 22.04.2024 shall apply.

¶16

It is reported that applicant/accused had damaged the property of jail on 16.11.2022 which makes him ineligible for facility. The jail authority may take decision as per Jail Rules but in the interregnum, let the Corrigendum dated 22.04.2024 be followed. ”

¶17

The impugned order was challenged before this Court and vide the order dated 24.12.2024, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order relying on Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

¶18

In the present case, the dispute revolves around Rule 631 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 and the addendums passed subsequently.

¶19

Rule 631 of the Delhi Prisons Rule reads as under:“ The prisoners who are involved in offences against the State, terrorist activities, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, National Security Advisor, Public Safety Act and otherwise involved in multiple heinous offences such as robbery, dacoity, murder, kidnapping for ransom etc., habitual jail rules offenders and who are frequently involved in assaulting co-inmates in the prison shall not be eligible for this facility in the interest of public safety and order. However, the Superintendent Jail will be empowered to take appropriate decision in individual case to case basis with the prior approval of Deputy Inspector General (Range) .”

¶20

Subsequently, the circular dated 22.04.2024 was issued wherein the operative

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:37

¶23

portion reads as under:-

¶24

“ That Inmate Phone Call Facility (only audio facility) can be permitted to the prisoners covered under Rule 631 of Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 and also for those who are lodged in High Security Ward, only after obtaining NOC/approval from the concerned prosecuting agencies. The Jail Superintendent shall provide the landline numbers/mobile numbers furnished by the inmate to the prosecuting agency for their NOC/approval of such facility from Jail .”

¶25

The said circular was further clarified by an addendum dated 22.05.2024 which reads as under:-

¶26

“ In continuation to Circular No.F.10(003769007)/CJ/Legal/PHQ/2024/3284-3303 dated 22.04.2024 it is clarified as under:

¶27

(a) All new prisoners applying for E-Mulakat and/or Telephone Facility, as on or after 22.04.2024, should be allowed such facility only after receipt of NOC from the Investigating Agency.

¶28

(b) The prisoners who are already availing the facility of E-Mulakat / Telephone Mulakat on or before 22.04.2024, the said facility will remain in force till the NOC from the Investigating Agencies is obtained, Superintendent Jails should enter into correspondence immediately in respect of all such prisoners where NOCs are not obtained and efforts should be made to procure the NOCs from the Investigating Agencies within ten days. The facility shall be dispensed with in case of any misconduct committed by such prisoner or permission denied by the Investigating Agency. ”

¶29

On perusal, respondent No.1 falls within the ambit of Clause (b) of the addendum dated 22.05.2024 as he was already availing the facility of E-Mulakat/Telephone Mulakat prior to 22.04.2024.

¶30

Admittedly, the NOC from the investigating agency is pending.

¶31

For the reasons that the addendum dated 22.05.2024 is applicable to respondent

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:37

¶34

No.1, the petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

¶35

The fact whether the Trial Court is vested with the power to pass such orders is not required to be adjudicated in the present petition and the revisionist is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in this regard.

¶36

With these observations, the petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶38

MARCH 3, 2025/DM

¶39

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:37

State (through Office of Director General Prisons) v. Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State (through Office of Director General Prisons) v. Asadullah Akhtar @ Haddi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aakash Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Aftab Ahmed @ Munna Vs State Govt NCT of Delhi

Guddi Devi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Murari Prasad Vs Surendra Verma

Manjeet Singh Vs State & Anr.