: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4272 OF 2006 Ghasiram Kanhayalal Solanki .. ..Applicant Versus 1.Narcotic Control Bureau 2.State of Maharashtra .. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4273 OF 2006 Ghasiram Kanhayalal Solanki .. ..Applicant Versus 1.Narcotic Control Bureau 2.State of Maharashtra .. ..Respondents Mr.Ayyaz Khan for applicant Mrs.P.H.Kantharia for NCB Mr.R.Y.Mirza, APP for State CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH DECEMBER, 2006 : 2 : P.C.: 1. These applications are filed by the applicant for being taken under Police escort for his daughter’s marriage. 2. The applicant is not praying that he be enlarged on bail nor does he request for any temporary bail for the marriage. All that is requested by him is that under police escort he should be taken for his daughter’s marriage. The details of the marriage ceremony requiring presence of the applicant as a father of the daughter/bride are also set out. 3. The applicant has prayed that he should be transferred to a Jail at Bhavani Mandi for 15 days. However, this request is not pressed by Shri Khan. The second request is that the ceremonies would start from 8th December, 2006 and the marriage would be solemnised on 11th/12th December, 2006. He submits that the applicant would not press for attending the ceremony scheduled on 8th December, 2006 but would certainly like to be present for the ceremonies of 11th/12th December, 2006. He submits that the urgency is that the applicant would have : 3 : to book his tickets as the ceremonies are going to be solemnised in the State of Madhya Pradesh and to be precise at Mandsaur. The applicant therefore, prays that under police escort he be taken from Mumbai to Mandsaur and after the ceremonies are over he be brought back under escort for being taken to custody/prison. 4. This application is opposed by the respondent no.1 Narcotic Control Bureau and the affidavit in reply is filed by the Investigating Officer. 5. The principal ground for opposing this request is that the Special Case No.181 of 2000 and 39 of 2004 wherein the applicant, is the original accused, are Part Heard. Recording of evidence is in progress. The next date of hearing is 5th and 8th December, 2006. The conduct of the applicant is such that he was declared as a Proclaimed Offender on 12th August, 2003. He was absconding and unavailable for trial. There are serious charges and the contraband seized to the tune of Rs.50 lacs and more. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to any concession. There is likelihood that he will misuse this liberty. : 4 : 6. After hearing both sides, I am of the view, that the NCB apart from making vague allegations has not been able to substantiate its pleas. The applicant was a proclaimed offender, according to them. However, on their own showing he is in custody since 2003 after his bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court on 17.1.2002. The applicant has not been enlarged on bail. His bail applications have been rejected. Those orders have gained finality and it is not the case of the prosecution that on the dates which have been assigned for the trial the applicant was not present or did not cooperate with the court in expeditious disposal of the case. 7. In my view, the applicant-accused may be guilty, prima facie of a serious crime, but merely because he is an accused does not mean that he has lost the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said Article guarantees everybody including under trials a decent and meaningful life. Everybody has a right to claim dignity, reputation and status otherwise the very purpose of this Constitutional protection is lost. (See: (See: (See: AIR 1978 SC 1548 - Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs. State AIR 1978 SC 1548 - Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs. State AIR 1978 SC 1548 - Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 1579 - Sunil Batra vs. Delhi of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 1579 - Sunil Batra vs. Delhi of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 1579 - Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration) Administration) Administration). That the marriage is of the Applicant’s : 5 : daughter is not disputed so also the date and venue of solemnisation of the same. The necessity of the father being with a daughter on the occasion of her marriage is not disputed. That the father is a under trial and detained does not mean that he is disentitled to apply for the above relief. 8. It is not that every reasonable request of an accused has to be turned down. The solemnisation of marriage of daughter of accused is an occasion when the applicant-accused desires to remain present as a father. Unless something exceptional is pointed out such a request should not be denied. Everything depends upon facts of each case. In fact, the applicant was advised to approach the trial court in this behalf. The applicant had applied, according to him, to the trial court on 19.10.2006 but the application was rejected. A copy of the reasoned order is also not made available. 9. These are very unfortunate and sorry state of affairs. Today, Ms. Kantharia appearing for NCB contends that it would be very difficult for the NCB to take the applicant under police escort from Mumbai to the place of marriage. However, she could not point out any : 6 : prohibition in law from considering such an application nor for grant of relief therein. Merely because the accused is under trial and the hearing of Special case is expedited the applicant cannot be taken out of custody is a stand which really surprises me. Mr. Khan pointed out that the trial has not been proceeding because CBI is taking adjournment as no Prosecutor is appointed for conducting the trial. It is not the applicant who has been delaying the trial according to him. It is not necessary to enter into this controversy. 10. In my view, to enable the applicant to attend the marriage of his daughter scheduled on 11th to 13th December, 2006 it is directed that the applicant shall be taken under police escort from Mumbai Central Prison to Mandsaur and shall be brought back by 15th December 2006. The Applicant undertakes to extend all cooperation and return to custody as directed above. The applicant states that he would bear all expenses in this behalf. Needless to state that applicant would not be provided police escort nor can he avail of the benefit of this order unless he deposits the cost/charges/expenses of the same. Both applications are allowed in the above terms. : 7 : 11. All concerned to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)