Parliament attack case: Supreme Court notice to Delhi Government

Parliament attack case: Supreme Court notice to Delhi Government
Legal Correspondent
Shaukat Hussain Guru files petition seeking his release
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Government on a petition filed by Shaukat Hussain Guru, convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ imprisonment in the Parliament attack case, seeking a direction for his release forthwith.
A Bench of Justices P.P. Naolekar and R.V. Raveendran issued the notice after hearing senior counsel Shanthi Bhushan appearing for the petitioner, Guru. The trial court in December 2002 had awarded death sentence to him and on appeal, the Delhi High Court confirmed the death penalty.
On appeal, the apex court reduced it to 10 years’ imprisonment.
The apex court dismissed his review petition in April 2006 and the curative petition in January this year. The present habeas corpus petition has been filed after exhausting all the remedies available to him.
In his writ petition, Guru submitted that he was convicted by the apex court by drawing an inference from the circumstances that he had knowledge of the conspiracy and the plan to attack Parliament House and yet he failed to give information to the nearest Magistrate or police officer of such intention.
He said that he was not given any opportunity to defend himself by leading evidence to show that he had complied with the requirement of Section 39 Cr.P.C. by informing a police officer who had not taken him seriously.
He said that it was a well-established principle of criminal law in this country that before a person was convicted of a crime, he had to be given an opportunity to defend himself against that allegation by framing a charge of that offence and thereafter giving him an opportunity to defend himself by producing the evidence.
Contending that no opportunity was given to lead evidence that he had in fact informed the police officer, he said that his conviction and 10 years’ imprisonment was clearly in contravention of the principles of natural justice and in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty).
He said that he had been kept in custody illegally and was therefore entitled to be released after recording a finding that his continued detention was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.