The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by a petitioner seeking relief through a writ of Mandamus and a writ of Habeas Corpus. Detained since October 30, 2014, the petitioner highlighted the refusal of jail authorities to act on release warrants issued by the lower courts.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner approached the High Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to seek directions for the Jail Superintendent to update his nominal roll and a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release from illegal custody.
The petitioner stated that he had been in custody since 2014. Despite obtaining bail in most non-bailable cases, he was incarcerated. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court had issued release warrants against the petitioner on July 18, 2023, but the jail authorities refused to process his release. The petitioner contended that, as per the nominal roll dated September 1, 2023, he is eligible for release, and even release warrants issued by the learned JMIC, Gurugram, were not implemented. The petitioner asserted discrepancies in the nominal roll, including cases where he is not a party, dismissed cases, and cases that do not exist. As a result, the petitioner sought his release from jail.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
- The petitioner contended that despite being granted bail for most of the non-bailable offences, he had been in custody since 2014. Even after issuance of release warrants on 18.07.2023, the jail authorities refused to process his release.
- The Law Officer's confirmation on 20.10.2023 stated that the petitioner was not in judicial custody, except in the present case, where bail has been directed.
- The status report on 01.11.2023 indicates 20 cases pending in Delhi, lacking records of bail directions. Similar ambiguity exists for 411 cases in other states.
Observations by the Court:
In light of the disputed status of cases against the petitioner, the Court determined that a comprehensive examination was necessary in the interest of justice. The following directives were issued by the Court:
- The Court directed the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi (District South and South East both) to verify the status of cases against the petitioner.
- This verification must ascertain whether cases were pending or disposed of, whether the petitioner had been granted bail, detailing the dates of relevant orders, and elucidating whether the petitioner had furnished personal or surety bonds. The court instructed the submission of a status report within one week.
- Upon receipt of the report, the Registry was directed to provide a copy to the petitioner's counsel and the concerned Jail Superintendent two days before the next hearing.
- Upon receiving an advance copy of the status report, the petitioner's counsel and the concerned Jail Superintendent were required to verify the status of cases and file a report within a week.
- The Jail Superintendent was mandated to specify cases where the petitioner had been released on bail and provide reasons if not. The Jail Superintendent was also directed to communicate with courts in other states to ascertain the status of cases against the petitioner.
The Court emphasized that these directives were issued because the petitioner claimed illegal detention despite being granted bail.
Decision of the Court:
The High Court directed this order to be transmitted to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judges for information and compliance, with a subsequent listing for compliance on 28.11.2023.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Dahiya vs. The Director General of Prisons & Anr.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur
Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 2786/2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Anannya Ghosh, Mr. Brian Henky Moses, Ms. Chitra Vats, Ms. Ioel Bose & Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr.Alok Sharma & Mr.Vasu Agarwal, Advocates with Mr.Abhijit Shankar, Law Officer, Tihar, New Delhi & Inspector Pankaj Kumar PS EOW.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
