New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) response regarding jailed MP Engineer Rashid’s request for custody parole to attend the ongoing Parliament session while facing trial in a terror funding case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan questioned the objection to allowing Rashid to attend the session while remaining in judicial custody, emphasizing that he is an elected Member of Parliament. “What is the difficulty in sending him in custody?” the judge asked.
The court granted the NIA time until Friday to provide its stance on the matter. The agency’s counsel, however, argued that the case involved security concerns and was not straightforward.
The court was hearing Rashid’s petition, which alleged that he had been left without legal recourse after the NIA court handling his bail application failed to take a decision following his election to the Lok Sabha last year. The delay was attributed to the NIA court not being a designated special MP/MLA court.
During the proceedings, a counsel representing the high court administration informed the bench that an application seeking clarification had been submitted to the Supreme Court and would be mentioned on Friday for listing. The Supreme Court’s website indicated that the case was likely to be heard on February 10 or 11.
Earlier, the NIA had opposed Rashid’s plea for interim bail to attend the Parliament session, asserting that he had no such “right” as a parliamentarian. In his petition, Rashid urged the high court to either expedite the disposal of his pending bail plea in the NIA court or intervene and decide the matter directly.
On December 24, 2023, Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh dismissed Rashid’s request for an order on his bail application, instead requesting the district judge to transfer the case to a court designated to try lawmakers. However, the case was later sent back to him, leading the trial judge to clarify that he could only rule on miscellaneous applications, not the bail plea itself.
The case remains under legal scrutiny, with further developments expected after the Supreme Court’s hearing on the matter.
