ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA vs KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 300

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B. V. NAGARATHNA
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sanjay Jain, A.S.G. Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rajan Kumar Choursia, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv., Ms. Madhumitha Kesavan, Adv., Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv., Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Adv., Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv., Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv., Ms. Pooja Kothari, Adv., Ms. Urvi Gupte, Adv., Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv., Ms. Akanksha Saxena, Adv., Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR, Mr. Amit K. Nain, AOR

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. John Locke in his work, Two Treatises of Government (1689)-stressed on personal liberty and stated that, “The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom: For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no law, there is no Freedom.”¹[John Locke, ‘The Second Treatise of Civil Government’, December 1689.]

2. In the present case, we discuss the rights of such accused, whose right to default bail, hangs in the balance by difference of a single day or even less. Ostensibly, one may presume this to be insignificant. However, the constitutional import of the matter is such, that personal liberty, which may only be taken away by a just and fair procedure established by law, needs to be analyzed and protected. The issue is simple to state but hard to answer. It is embedded in a maze of case law that this Court needs to negotiate. Simply put, the Court needs to answer whether the period of remand under the first proviso to Sec. 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CrPC’) is inclusive of the day on which the Magistrate orders remand. Whatever be the outcome, this Court is conscious

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 300

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B. V. NAGARATHNAENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA – AppellantVersusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC. – Respondent

K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B. V. NAGARATHNA
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC. – Respondent