The statutory requirement to produce an accused before a magistrate for the extension of judicial custody is mandatory but subject to the doctrine of impossibility. When production is rendered factually impossible by external, uncontrollable circumstances, the remand order is not automatically vitiated if no prejudice is shown.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Nitesh Rana, Advocate assisted by Ms. Zainab Khan and Sri Ashvani Tripathi, learned counsels for petitioner, Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation and Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of Constitution is preferred challenging the remand order dated 16.4.2026 passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad in First Information Report dated 15.3.2026 (bearing number RC2182026A0005), under Section 61(2) of B.N.S, 2023 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I., AC-III, New Delhi.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 15.3.2026 from the Conference Room of Felix Hospital, Sector-137, Noida (U.P.) in respect of abovementioned offence. The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter produced the petitioner before trial court on 16.3.2026 seeking police custody of petitioner. The court concerned by order dated 16.3.2026 granted police custody of petitioner for four days from 16.3.2026 to 19.3.2026. Thereafter, Central Bureau of Investigation further submitted an application for remand of petitioner to judicial custody, which was granted from 19.3.2026 to 2.4.2026 and thereafter judicial custody was further extended till 16.4.2026. It is alleged that on 16.4.2026, petitioner was not produced before court concerned neither physically or through video conference. However, court concerned by impugned order dated 16.4.2026 has extended judicial custody of petitioner from 16.4.2026 to 30.4.2026.

4. A perusal of aforementioned order dated 16.4.2026 passed by court concerned would go to show that aforesaid court has recorded specific finding that petitioner is not presented before the court concerned from jail.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that by impugned order dated 16.4.2026, judicial remand of petitioner has been extended without appearance of petitioner-accused, either personally or through video-conference. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that as per Section 187(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 it was mandatory for respondents to have produced petitioner before court concerned at the time of extension of remand on 16.4.2026. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jigar Alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 6 SCC 484 and submits that production of accused before court concerned at the time of extension of judicial custody is mandatory. It is further submitted that accused has right to oppose the remand and impugned order is in violation of Section 187(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that statutory compliances are not empty formality and any deviation from express procedural mandates cannot be condoned under the pretext of subsequent validation. It is submitted that impugned order does not specify reason as to why accused-petitioner was not produced before court concerned at the time of passing of impugned order of extension of judicial custody. He further submits that subsequent order dated 30.4.2026 of court