Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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