The Delhi High Court in the case observed and has ordered the Director of Directorate of Enforcement for conducting an inquiry against an investigating officer, who being an assistant Director-rank officer, and his superior officers over the unjustified incarceration of an accused who being in jail for 17 days.
The bench headed by Additional Session Judge Devender Kumar Jangala in the case observed and has stated that it is being appeared that the accused has suffered the custody period of 17 days due to the callous approach of the agency against the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed as stated under the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The court in the case observed and has noted that no application for extension of his custody or seeking his release was moved by the probe agency on his production, thus, the court ordered for the release of one Om Prakash from jail as he was in the judicial custody.
In the present case, the ED arrested the Om Prakash on June 12, 2023 with regards to open ended non-bailable warrant and was remanded to judicial custody for three days. The court extended his judicial custody for 14 days on June 15, 2023 and he was being produced before the ASJ after completion of 14 days judicial custody.
The bench in the case noted that before the court, very precarious situation had arisen as the Enforcement Directorate, ED initially got NBWs issued against the accused and arrested him. Thus, the IO later in the case stated that the agency does not want his custody after completion of 17 days in custody.
Adding to it, the Judge stated that the ED, after the arrest of the accused, was either required to get his custody or it needs to be extended from the court or should have moved an application for his release from the custody but it failed to comply with legal mandate.
Further, the court stated that there being the justified ground for arresting the accused and that the same should have been in existence even today because nothing happened during this intervening period. The court remarked, had there been no ground to arrest or to keep this person in custody, thus, the said agency should have done so on the first date of production before the court and without waiting for the incarceration of the accused behind the bars for 17 days.
It has also been stated by the said court that the power of arrest cannot be allowed to exercise in arbitrary manner and that the person needs to be arrested only when the justified circumstances exist. Further, the court also stated that no person is allowed to be detained in custody without on the reasonable ground.
Accordingly, the bench directed that a copy of the order needs to be sent to the Secretary of Union Ministry of Finance’s