UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Lawful Custody in Tihar Jail Cases: Asserts Custody Continuum in Absence of Physical Court Production

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed three habeas corpus petitions pertaining to the alleged illegal detention of individuals in Tihar Jail, underlining the principle of “custody continuum” in legal proceedings. The judgment, delivered in the cases of W.P.(CRL) 3641/2023, 3657/2023, and 3662/2023, addressed key issues surrounding the Enforcement Case Information Report No. ECIR/STF/02/2022.

The petitioners, held In Tihar Jail, challenged their detention due to the absence of a judicial remand order. They claimed a violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, arguing that their detention had become patently illegal due to the lack of a judicial custody order.

In a detailed observation, the court noted, “When the accused is not produced before such a Court on the date of hearing and no production warrant is issued for the said accused on the same date of hearing but is issued subsequently, the custody of the accused will not be in continuum and for the break period, it may be illegal.” This critical remark forms the crux of the court’s decision, emphasizing the legal framework governing custody and remand.

The respondents, represented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), contended that the custody was lawful and in compliance with procedural norms. They argued that the issuance of valid production warrants and the status of judicial custody negated any claim of illegal detention.

The High Court, after extensive review of the submissions and relevant legal provisions under Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), upheld the lawfulness of the detention. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, observed, “The learned ASJ-04 has rightly issued production warrants against the petitioners on 07.12.2023 for production of the petitioners and the petitioners remain in lawful custody of learned ASJ-04.”

Date of Decision: December 19, 2023

NITIN GARG VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR

 

Latest Legal News