Neh Srivastava v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary Sho Ps Eow Mandir Marg Delhi & Ors

order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas corpus could be issued. [...]

¶21The act of directing remand of an accused is thus held to be a judicial function and the challenge to the order of remand is not to be entertained in a habeas corpus petition. The first question posed by the High Court, thus, stands answered. In the present case, as on the date when the matter was considered by the High Court and the order was passed by it, not only were there orders of remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Special Court, Gurugram but there was also an order of extension passed by the Central Government on 14-12-2018. The legality, validity and correctness of the order or remand could have been challenged by the original writ petitioners by filing appropriate proceedings. However, they did not raise such challenge before the competent

appellate or revisional forum. The orders of remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Special Court, Gurugram had dealt with merits of the matter and whether continued detention of the accused was justified or not. After going into the relevant issues on merits, the accused were remanded to further police custody. These orders were not put in challenge before the High Court. It was, therefore, not open to the High Court to entertain challenge with regard to correctness of those orders. The High Court, however, considered the matter from the standpoint whether the initial order of arrest itself was valid or not and found that such legality could not be sanctified by subsequent order of remand. Principally, the issue which was raised before the High Court was whether the arrest could be effected after period of investigation, as stipulated in the said order dated 20-6-2018 had come to an end. The supplementary issue was the effect of extension of time as granted on 14-12-2018. It is true that the arrest was effected when the period had expired but by the time the High Court entertained the petition, there was an order of extension passed by the Central Government on 14-12-2018. Additionally, there were judicial orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Special Court, Gurugram, remanding the accused to custody. If we go purely by the law laid down by this Court with regard to exercise of jurisdiction in respect of habeas corpus petition, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition and passing the order.

¶10Thus, it is clear from the above decision that this Court in a Habeas Corpus petition cannot consider the legality of the detention in reference to the initial arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested on 16th

November, 2022 and thereafter the bail of the Petitioner has been rejected by different forums including this Court by reasoned orders.

¶11Considering that the arrest is dating back to November, 2022, the repeated bail application have been rejected as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office (supra) this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for habeas corpus in this case.

¶12However, it is made clear that insofar as seeking of bail on the ground raised by the Petitioner in the present petition is concerned, the Petitioner is free to avail of this remedies, if any available, in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶13The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE

FEBRUARY 27, 2025/dk/da/msh

(corrected & released on 04th March, 2025)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 27th February, 2025 + W.P.(CRL) 702/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 452/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6510/2025 NEH SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Pathak and Mr. Rohit Yadav, Advs. (M:7440767574) versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crml.) with Mr. Aryan Sachdeva & Mr. Abhinav Arya, Advs. with Insp. Rakesh Roshan PS EOW. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of the Petitioner who is stated to be under custody in respect of FIR No. 92/2020 dated 7th August, 2020 registered P.S. Economic Offences Wing under Sections 409/420/120B. 3. The Petitioner also seeks to challenge his arrest on 16th November, 2022 under the said FIR and subsequent incarceration for being illegal. The ground on which the arrest has been challenged is that though the Petitioner is stated to be arrested on 16th November, 2022, however, he was produced before the concerned Magistrate only on 18th November, 2022. Hence, according to the Petitioner, there has been a delay in production of the Petitioner before the concerned Magistrate beyond the prescribed period of 24 hours under Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. This Court notices that the Petitioner was arrested more than two years ago. He has already filed applications seeking bail which was dismissed by the trial court. Order dated 5th August, 2024 has also been passed by the Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Petitioner's application seeking regular bail in BAIL APPLN. 3320/2023. The Supreme Court on 06th December, 2024 in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 46509/2024 titled Dr. Neh Srivastava vs. State of NCT of Delhi has dismissed challenge to the rejection of bail, in the following terms: "2. Heard Mr. Lokesh Ahlawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of NCT of Delhi. 3. As the charges have not been framed and we have informed by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel that further forensic investigation regarding genuineness of the signatures is underway, we are disinclined to consider bail at this stage. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly." 5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this ground of non- production of the Petitioner within the stipulated time before the Magistrate was not in the knowledge of the Petitioner and hence was not raised in the bail applications. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court which decided the bail application including the Supreme Court. 6. The Court has heard the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been arrested way back in November, 2022. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has earlier preferred statutory remedies against his arrest by filing bail applications, including before this Court and the Supreme Court. It is only after dismissal of the petition seeking bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6th December, 2024, has the Petitioner preferred the present petition. 7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the observations of the ld. Single Judge in the order dated 5th August, 2024, wherein the Court has duly considered all grounds for grant of regular bail as also the prima facie allegations against the Petitioner. The said observations are extracted hereunder: "59. The applicant in the present case is stated to be a reputed and influential government official. It is alleged that the repute of his position was one of the factors that was used to induce the victims into investing their monie