The Delhi High Court has quashed the remand order as the remand hearing just after 1 hour of furnishing grounds of arrest.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has observed that sufficient time must given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody.
The bench noted that Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to serve the grounds of arrest in writing upon the petitioner after the petitioner had already been produced in court; and then observing that since the remand hearing took-place about an hour later, it was sufficient compliance of the law, reduced the petitioner’s right under section 50 Cr.P.C. to a farce.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he was the ‘Manager’ of an establishment which was inter alia engaged in the sexual abuse and exploitation of victims and was living-of the gains of such activity, based on which allegation the subject FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.
Subsequently, the Investigating Officer moved an application seeking the petitioner‟s custody; and vide order passed by the Magistrate, the petitioner was remanded to police custody for 02 days. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicial custody for 14 days vide order passed by the Magistrate.
Pursuant to notice being issued on the present petition, the State has filed Status Report in the matter.
The petitioner contended that the grounds of arrest were never communicated to the petitioner until after the filing of the remand application by the I.O. before the learned Magistrate; and that therefore, the petitioner’s arrest and remand were both illegal.
The petitioner argued that in any case the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, and the petitioner must be taken to have been arrested at 11:30 a.m. on 17.05.2024 when he was detained.
The petitioner contended that the grounds of arrest mentioned in the remand application filed by the I.O. before the Magistrate are completely different from the grounds of arrest purportedly served on the petitioner during the course of the remand hearing. The distinction vitiates the requirement of serving the grounds of arrest on the arrestee.
The court held that the petitioner’s arrest is being set-aside on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but the petitioner must continue to participate in the proceedings arising from the subject FIR in which chargesheet has been filed.
The court directed that the petitioner shall be released from judicial custody, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with 02 local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
Case Details
Case Title: Marfing Tamang @ Maaina Tamang Versus State (NCT Of Delhi)
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4391/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19329/2024
Date: 04/02/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Adit S. Pujari and Shaurya Mittal, Advocates
Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP
Read More: Direct Tax Weekly Flashback: 2 To 8 February 2025
