New Delhi [India], July 18 (ANI): Delhi's Patiala House courton Friday confirmed its decision regarding the police detention of Anwar Khan, also known as Chacha,Hasim Babaalias Asim, Sameer alias Baba, and Zoya Khan under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime ActMCOCA) case.
DelhiThe police requested a 10-day detention for the individuals accused.
Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh issued a ruling following arguments presented byDelhiOfficers and legal representatives for those charged with offenses.
The court has scheduled a hearing on the custody of the accused on July 21, considering the arguments that an SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the re-arrest of the accused.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akhand Pratap Singh of the special cell stated that these defendants were taken into custody in aMCOCAcase associated with the killing of a businessman, Sunil Jain, in the Farsh Bazar region.
The killing resulted from the activities of an organized crime group. Throughout the inquiry, the names of these four defendants came up, as provided by the SPP.
It was also argued that the remand was necessary to reveal the methods used by the syndicate. Several members of the group had already left the country.
On the other hand, advocate Tarun Rana represented the accused, Zoya.
He stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been submitted to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.
It was also stated that the SLP number has been created. The case is expected to be scheduled before the SC on Monday.
The legal team stated that they will present their arguments on July 21 at 2 p.m., pending the Supreme Court's directive.
On July 16, the DelhiThe High Court rejected the application filed by the accused individuals contesting their re-arrest in this case.
The Supreme Court decided that an individual is not entitled to protection from being arrested again simply because their first arrest was invalid due to procedural issues.
"If the re-arrest is conducted after addressing these deficiencies and in compliance with the law, it is not considered unlawful," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
In criminal law, procedural protections are crucial for safeguarding individual freedoms, yet they should not be used as a means to obstruct legitimate investigations into serious offenses," the Court stated, emphasizing that "an error during the initial arrest does not prevent a valid arrest if the legal criteria are met afterward.
The request was submitted by Anwar Khan known as Chacha,Hasim BabaAlias Asim, Sameer alias Baba, and Zoya Khan were represented by a group of lawyers such as Anurag Jain, MM Khan, Amit Chadha, Atin Chadha, Munisha Chadha, and Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, along with other legal professionals.
They requested a ruling stating that their arrest on June 10, 2025, under the 2024 FIR concerning the murder of Sunil Jain was illegal and in violation of the constitution.
The applicants argued that their previous arrest, which was ruled "non-est" on May 13, 2025, by the Special Judge because of the lack of written justification for the arrest, prevented them from being arrested again without new evidence. They claimed that the police had bypassed prior court directives by re-arresting them without a valid reason, thus infringing upon their rights as outlined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, together with Special Public Prosecutor Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh and other representatives of the State, contended that the previous release resulted from a procedural error rather than an absence of incriminating evidence.
The government argued that new reasons for the arrest were presented during the second arrest, and all procedural protections were strictly followed.
The panel of Justice Swarna Kamta Sharma, supporting the State's argument, stated that "the petitioners should not be permitted to benefit from procedural errors made by investigating officers in the past. Individual freedom is safeguarded, but not to the point of hindering the administration of justice in severe criminal cases such as those under"MCOCA."
The Court referred to decisions such as Kavita Manikikar v. CBI, Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra, and Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam to confirm that a re-arrest is legally permissible when conducted in accordance with proper procedures.
The court also noted that in this case, there was enough evidence against the petitioners, who have significant criminal records, and their supposed involvement in a bigger criminal organization was supported by concrete proof.
The Supreme Court confirmed the judicial detention orders issued on June 11 and June 16, along with the Special Judge's decision from July 4 that validated the re-arrest.
The Court stated: "The petitioners' first arrest was deemed invalid solely due to technical issues. After the procedural mistakes were corrected and the reasons for the arrest were properly provided, their subsequent arrest cannot be considered unlawful." (ANI)
Posting Komentar