A Delhi Court has recently instructed the Director of ED to initiate an inquiry against an investigating officer, Assistant Director, and their superiors regarding the “unjustified incarceration” of an accused individual in jail for a period of 17 days.
Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala remarked, “It is evident that the accused has endured a custody period of 17 days due to the agency’s negligent approach, which is in violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).”
The court has ordered the release of Om Prakash, who was in judicial custody, noting that the probe agency did not file any application for an extension of his custody or his release upon his production. Om Prakash was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 12 based on an open-ended non-bailable warrant and was initially remanded to judicial custody for three days. Subsequently, on June 15, his judicial custody was extended for 14 days, following which he was produced before the Additional Sessions Judge.
The judge highlighted a “very precarious situation” where the ED first obtained non-bailable warrants against the accused and arrested him, but the investigating officer later stated that the agency no longer required his custody after the 17-day period.
The judge emphasized that it was the responsibility of the arresting officer to either seek an extension of custody from the court or file an application for the accused’s release, as the liberty of the individual had been curtailed solely at the agency’s behest. The court stated that the arresting authority could not simply state that it no longer sought custody after the accused had spent 17 days in custody, as there had been no change in circumstances since the date of arrest.
The court expressed that if there had been justifiable grounds for the arrest, they should have persisted until the present, as nothing had transpired during the intervening period. It asserted that the agency should have taken action on the first court appearance of the accused, without subjecting them to incarceration for 17 days, had there been no grounds for arrest or custody.
The court stressed that liberty is a fundamental requirement for modern individuals, being a delicate fruit of a mature civilization, and it is the duty of every government authority to respect the right to personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Furthermore, the judge underscored that the power of arrest cannot be exercised arbitrarily and that a person should only be arrested when justified circumstances exist. “No person should be detained in custody without reasonable grounds,” the court declared.
The judge also directed the transmission of a copy of the order to the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Finance’s Department of Revenue for information.
