The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Siddharth Diwan vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that once a person has surrendered to the Court custody, that is considered deemed arrest and he shall remain in the custody of the Court, till further orders.
Facts
The petitioner sought quashing of impugned orders passed by respondents suspending him; directions to remove his suspension; directions to consider his suspended period as time spent on duty and pay him full pay and allowance.
The case was registered for alleged offences under the IPC and PC Act, 1988 he allegedly committed at Composite Hospital, BSF, Jodhpur while functioning as a member of a medical board for Review Medical Examination for Constable (GD) 2018 in CAPFs. The FIR involved requesting and receiving bribes from medical exam candidates for recruitment in exchange for passing them. The medical review uncovered the corrupt actions. Ftr H BSF, Jodhpur, contacted CBI. CBI sent its report to BSF with a request to prosecute the petitioner for offenses under 120-B of IPC and 7 and 8 of the PC Act, 1988. The sanction was conveyed by the department.
Procedural History
The Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur told the DIG (Med) CH BSF, Agartala, Tripura, that Shri. Rajender Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB, delivered the charge sheet in court. After hearing the petitioner's case, the court sent him to judicial custody until 22.08.2022.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that Rule 40A(2)(I) of the Border Security Rules, 1969 states that an officer can be suspended only after 48 hours in custody. It was also contended that he appeared before the CBI Court on 08.08.2022 and was committed to judicial detention but released on bail on 08.09.2022. Moreover, he was sent to judicial detention by the court, not arrested by civil police.
Observations of the Court
The Bench found that Petitioner was in judicial detention from 08.08.2022 until 08.09.2022 when he was released. The petitioner was detained for more than 48 hours, and under Rule 40 A (2I) of the Border Security Rules, 1969, he was suspended for the aforementioned cause.
It opined that:
“The criminal jurisprudence is that once a person has surrendered to the Court custody, that is considered deemed arrest and he shall remain in the custody of the Court, till further orders of the Court.”
Judgment
The Bench concluded that no case was made out by the petitioner who was under suspension from 04.10.2022 which was further extended vide order dated 03.11.2022 till 04.05.2023. They did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
