In the Vivo Money Laundering Case, the Delhi High Court rejects the pleas of three accused claiming unlawful detention in jail without a judicial order

Case: NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Coram: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3641/2023

Court Observation: “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.”

“It is true that an order of remand can be challenged in a Habeas Corpus petition if such an order is passed in an absolutely mechanical or casual manner. The contention of learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners cannot be brushed aside that a valid custody remand can be made in accordance with express provisions of law, when the custody of an arrested person is illegal, such a person is entitled to be released forthwith,” 

“It is also not the case of the petitioners that prosecution complaint was filed by ED beyond the stipulated period thereby entitling the petitioners for “default bail”. Also no bail application was moved on behalf of any of the petitioners at that time. In such a situation, the petitioners have to remain in “custody of court”. Thus, the learned ASJ- 04 rightly directed for issuance of production warrants for the petitioners to be produced in the Court on the next date of hearing,”

“The position, however, will be different 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. In such a situation, the custody of the accused will not be in continuum and for the break period, it may be illegal,”

Previous Posts

Efficient judicial functioning is jeopardized when parties are permitted to backtrack from their commitments without providing any justifiable reasons, as emphasized by the Delhi High Court

J&K High Court stresses that Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in line with the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21

Delhi High Court Orders Litigant Claiming Ownership of Territory Between Ganga and Yamuna from Agra to Gurugram to Pay ₹10,000 in Costs

Calcutta High Court states that arranging groups in the tender process with clear distinctions is acceptable; it shouldn’t be criticized just because it may not be convenient for all bidders

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must independently prove the ‘Pendency of Official Favour,’ without relying on external support: AP High Court

Keywords

In the Vivo Money Laundering Case, Delhi High Court