States & UTs

    Tillu Tajpuria murder: Delhi HC issues notice on gangster's custody parole plea for marriage

    The Hawk
    February21/ 2024
    Last Updated:

    Delhi High Court Notice to Police on Gangster Yogesh's Custody Parole Plea: Gogi Gang Member Seeks Bail for Marriage. Special Judge's Order and Forged Documents Issue Highlighted.

    Representative Image.

    New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to Delhi Police on a plea filed by gangster Yogesh alias Tunda, seeking six hours of custody parole for his marriage.
    Tunda, a member of the Gogi Gang, is one of the accused in the murder of rival gang leader Tillu Tajpuria in the Tihar Jail in May last year. He is also accused in a case lodged under MCOCA in 2018.

    Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice to the Delhi Police for its response and listed the matter for further hearing on March 1.
    His earlier application for custody parole and subsequent interim bail was dismissed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) on January 22.
    Advocate Virender Mual and Deepak Kumar have moved a petition on his behalf challenging the trial court order dismissing his plea.
    It is stated that the order dated January 22, 2024, is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the fundamental rights enshrined under the articles of the Constitution of India.
    While dismissing the plea, Special Judge (MCOCA) Chanderjit Singh held that the right to procreation is not absolute and necessitates a contractual examination. It was also held that it is not an irrefutable right.
    The court had also considered the previous conduct of the accused and the status report filed by Delhi Police.
    The court noted that the previous conduct of the accused regarding the forging of documents for bail has also been reported.

    "The report also states that the accused committed a murder while in custody. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the application seeking custody bail and consequent interim bail is dismissed," the court said in the order of January 22, 2024.
    It was further reported that earlier another bail application was filed by forging a COVID-positive certificate, claiming that the father of the accused had caught COVID.
    The Delhi police had filed a status report and stated that this crime syndicate has 60 cases against it. The members of this organized crime syndicate had a record of escaping from police custody.
    "Accused is one of the assailants who had committed a murder in jail as well. There is a strong apprehension that the accused can jump bail if this application is accepted," Delhi police had said.
    It was submitted by the counsels for accused Yogesh that the effect of fixing the marriage has been verified, which is reflected in the report. It was also submitted that custody parole for six hours is granted and after that, interim bail for whatever period the court finds fit may be granted.
    On the other hand, while opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that there is a strong apprehension that the accused will flee from the process of law.
    It was submitted that earlier, an attempt was also made to procure interim bail by forging documents. The present application seems like another attempt in a similar vein by the accused. The application should be dismissed, argued the prosecution.
    The special judge (MCOCA) had said in the order that the accused was arrested in this case on August 4, 2018. It has further been reported that the mother of the girl stated that she was told about a week ago about the proposed marriage of Yogesh and her daughter.
    "It implies that this marriage has been fixed while the accused is in custody and was not fixed prior to his being in custody," the court said.
    It further said that the court is mindful of the order of the High Court of Delhi in Kundan Singh v State, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has adjudicated upon the aspect of convict having the right to procreate.
    "The said case is distinguishable from the contention raised in the present application. Firstly, the applicant in the said case was convicted, whereas, the applicant in the present case is an under-trial," the court had observed.