Delhi High Court
Anil Mittal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 19 May, 2020
#9
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL.) 822/2020
ANIL MITTAL .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya
Gosain, Advocate for State.
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Nitesh Rana, Advocate for
UOI.
% Date of Decision: 19th May, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 6548-6549/2020
Allowed, subject to just exception.
W.P.(CRL.) 822/2020
1. The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view
of the urgency expressed therein.
2. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
3. It is pertinent to mention that present writ of habeas corpus has been
filed seeking a direction to release the petitioner in accordance with the
order dated 12th May, 2020 passed by the trial court and to declare that the
transfer of custody of the petitioner by respondent no. 2 was not in
accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention of the
petitioner post 12th May, 2020 and his production on 18th May, 2020 before
the District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow was illegal and unjustified as there
was no pending production warrant against the petitioner on the date he was
granted bail i.e. 12th May, 2020 in FIR No. 178/2017 under Sections
406/409/420/120-B IPC Police Station EOW. He points out that the
petitioner's daughter had already filed the surety bond before the Duty
Magistrate on 15th May, 2020.
5. He also contends that the petitioner is entitled to parity with co-
accused Chander Prakash Wadhwa who has been released on bail on 16th
May, 2020.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned standing counsel for State and
Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned standing counsel for UOI accept notice for
respondents.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the admitted position
that emerges is that on the date the petitioner was granted bail i.e. 12 th May,
2020 there was no live production warrant against the petitioner. The last
production warrant was dated 6th March, 2020 directing the Jail authorities
to produce the petitioner before a court in Lucknow on 16th March, 2020.
8. Section 269 (c) of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that where a person in
respect of whom an order is made under Section 267, requiring attendance
of a prisoner before a particular court, is in custody for a period that would
expire before expiration of the time required for complying with the order
and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained, in
those circumstances, the officer in charge of the prison must abstain from
carrying out the Court's order and instead, should send a statement of
reasons to the concerned court for the said absence. [See order dated
15/05/2020 passed in W.P. (Crl.) 802/2020 : Vinod Bansal Vs. State &
Anr.,]
9. Also the Allahabad High Court in Dharampal and another Vs. State
of U.P. and another, 1981 SCC OnLine All 756 has held as under:-
"9. A consideration of the aforementioned provisions indicate that
the requisition under S. 3(2), Prisoners (Attendance in Courts)
Act, 1955, and S. 267(1), Cr. P.C. can be addressed to Supdt., of a
District jail who is already holding a prisoner under an authority
of law. The requisition by itself does not authorise the detention of
any person. It merely requires the officer in charge of the prison
(1) to produce the detenu before the requisitioning Court on the
date fixed by it and (2) after the purpose of requisition is over, to
take him back and to keep him in custody in accordance with the
writ or direction issued by the Court which had authorised his
detention in jail. As laid down in S. 55, Prisons Act, 1894, during
the period the prisoner is away from the prison in pursuance of the
requisition, he would throughout be deemed to be in the custody of
the prison and would be subject to all the same incidents as if he
were actually in prison.
10. The requisitions issued by the criminal Courts in Haryana,
therefore, did not authorise the Supdt., District Jail, Meerut, to
keep the two petitioners in his custody. They merely required the
Supdt., to produce the two petitioners before the concerned courts
only if the Supdt., was entitled to keep them in his custody under
some valid authority. Since the various requisition orders did not
authorise the Supdt., District Jail, Meerut to keep the two
petitioners in custody and the moment the petitioners had been
admitted to bail in all the criminal cases in connection with which
their detention in District Jail, Meerut had been authorised, the
authority of the Supdt., District Jail, to keep the petitioners under
detention came to an end and the petitioners' detention after being
released on bail, became illegal and without authority of law. The
requisitions received from the criminal Courts at Haryana under
S. 3, Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 or under S. 267
Cr. P.C. could not confer any valid authority on the Supdt., of jail
to keept the petitioners under detention and render his custody in
District Jail, Meerut valid."
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that as of today there
is no live production warrant against the petitioner, he is directed to be
released forthwith in accordance with the order dated 12 th May, 2020 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karkadooma Courts, Delhi in FIR
No. 178/2017 under Sections 406/409/420/120-B IPC Police Station EOW.
11. However, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to this Court
that the petitioner shall appear before the Lucknow court on the next date
which is as of now scheduled for 12th June, 2020.
12. The undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner is
accepted by this Court and petitioner is held bound by the same.
13. In future, the Director General (Prisons) is directed to keep in mind
Section 269(c) of Cr. P.C. as well as judgment of the Allahabad High Court
in Dharampal and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1981 SCC
OnLine All 756 so that in similar cases accused are not forced to file writ
petitions before this Court.
14. With the aforesaid directions, present petition stands disposed of. The
order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also
forwarded to the learned counsel through email.
15. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned
Jail Superintendents as well.
MANMOHAN, J
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 19, 2020
rn
