Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Harsh Pal Singh Alias Rubal – Appellant
Versus
State (Nct Of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (the MCOCA) has been filed on behalf of accused no. 7 (A7) in Crime No. 629/2024, Farsh Bazar, Police Station, aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2025, as per which the trial court dismissed his application for bail. The appellant/accused, as per the aforesaid FIR, is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under various Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 249, 61(2), 303, 318, 336 and 341 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA.
2. According to the appellant/A7, he was detained on the intervening night of 25.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 at Amritsar Airport pursuant to a Look-out Circular (LoC), when he was leaving for Bangkok for business purposes. He was taken to a police station in Amritsar, from where his custody was handed over to the Special Cell, Delhi, without being produced before the nearest Magistrate. He was then taken by road from Amritsar to Delhi. He was produced before the Court only on 27.09.2025, i.e., after more than 24 hours. The learned counsel submitted that once the appella
Violation of 24-hour production mandate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution renders custody illegal, necessitating bail despite the seriousness of charges.
The distinction between detention and formal arrest is crucial; detention during an investigation does not necessarily constitute an arrest unless it deprives the individual of liberty, affecting com....
The failure to obtain a transit warrant and produce the accused within 24 hours constitutes a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unlawful.
A person in custody cannot be detained without producing him before a Magistrate under colourable pretention that no actual arrest is made.
The failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing and late production before the Magistrate violates due process, rendering the arrest illegal.
The main legal point established is that the impugned detention order was based on specific cases and witness statements, and the delay in issuing the order was properly explained by the detaining Au....
Arrest must be recognized from when an individual's liberty is restrained, and failure to produce before a magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention under constitutional provisions.
Detention from the time of the raid constituted a violation of the Applicant's rights under Articles 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution, leading to the grant of bail with stringent conditions.
An illegal arrest vitiates the grounds for denying bail, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
