Delhi HC Reserves Order on Rs 4 Lakh Parole Cost Imposed on Engineer Rashid to Attend Parliament

The Delhi High Court on Monday, 18 August 2025, reserved its order on a plea moved by Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, challenging a trial court’s order imposing costs on him as a condition for granting custody parole to attend Parliament.

The division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Jairam Bhambhani reserved the order after hearing submissions from Rashid, the Delhi Police, and the NIA.

On August 12, the high court had asked Delhi Police to explain the basis of the travel cost imposed on Engineer Rashid, as a condition for granting him custody parole to attend Parliament.

Today, the counsel appearing for the Delhi Police explained the basis of the travel cost imposed on Engineer Rashid.  “He is a high-value target with connections to various terrorist organisations. The number of police officials involved is 15, and the amount has been calculated. He is required to pay it," the counsel added.

The court was further told that the salaries of the police officials also formed part of the costs imposed.

Hearing this, the court said,"This man does not even have his liberty back. He has not been granted interim bail; he is only on custody parole. The jail authorities are travelling with him; he remains in custody. If the jail travels with him, whatever expenses are there, it's for the jail to incur."

Appearing for Rashid, Senior Advocate N.Hariharan said, "What I am trying to persuade your lordship is that if custody parole is granted, I should not be burdened with the salary of 15 people."

The senior counsel further added that Rashid has already been granted custody parole by the trial court, and that order has not been challenged by the NIA.

However, Justice Chaudhary said, "There is also an additional aspect. We must consider whether a ground for custody parole is really made out in this case. Could it be that custody parole, if granted, would entitle him to attend all sessions of Parliament at all times? If that is so, then what would be the purpose of the settled law, which clearly states that such a person is not entitled to attend Parliament while in custody? That is the question before us, and it is a task we must carefully consider.”

Court accordingly went on to reserve its verdict.

During the last hearing, Senior Advocate N Hariharan for Rashid had argued that the condition was unjust and unreasonable, stating that Rashid was unable to represent his constituency due to the condition imposed, which required him to pay daily expenses to attend the parliament.

On 31 July, the court issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on a plea filed by Rashid challenging the trial court’s order framing charges against him in a terror funding case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

 In an earlier hearing, the high court had sought a response from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Rashid's plea challenging a trial court order directing him to pay Rs 1.44 lakh per day for travelling to Parliament in custody between July 24 and August 4.

On July 22, the Special NIA Court at Patiala House had granted custody parole to Engineer Rashid to enable his attendance during the monsoon session of Parliament, scheduled from July 24 to August 4, subject to the condition that he bears the travel and security expenses himself.

Previously, Engineer Rashid had approached the High Court seeking custody parole to attend the parliament budget session. He argued that he was allowed to campaign for the elections without any objection from the NIA, but was not being allowed to fulfil his constitutional duties as a member of parliament. Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Engineer Rashid, had argued that a previous order had granted Rashid permission to attend the budget session for two days. In September 2024, Engineer Rashid was granted interim bail by the Rouse Avenue Court to campaign in the elections.

The NIA had registered a case on May 30, 2017, invoking Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) and several provisions of the UAPA, 1967, against Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed and other separatist leaders, including Engineer Rashid, for allegedly fueling secessionist activities.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate ​​N. Hariharan with Advocates Vikhyat Oberoi, Aditya Wadhwa, Nishita Gupta, Shivam Prakash, Ravi Sharma, Jagriti Pandey, Punya Rekha Angara, Vasundhara N., Sana Singh, Aman Akhtar, Vinayak Gautam and Hasnain Khwaja

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik with Advocates Ayush Aggarwal, K. Saleem, K.P. Rustom Khan and Yatharth Sharma

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v National Investigative Agency

Date: 18 August 2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani