Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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