Vivo money laundering case: Delhi High Court rejects Habeas Corpus plea alleging illegal detention of accused

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected Habeas Corpus petitions by three persons accused in a money laundering case filed against Chinese smartphone manufacturer, Vivo [Nitin Garg & Ors v UOI]..The accused persons had claimed that their continued detention in Tihar jail was illegal as there was no court order extending their judicial custody or remand beyond December 7, 2023. .However, on examining the facts, Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur concluded that there was no break in their custody from December 7 and that they remained in lawful judicial custody. The Court arrived at this conclusion after noting that the accused could not, for unavoidable reasons, be produced before the concerned trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-4 or ASJ-04) on December 7 and that the trial court had, therefore, issued production warrants to ensure their presence on the next date of hearing on December 13. .The High Court opined that this indicated that the three accused remained in lawful judicial custody. “The learned ASJ-04 has rightly issued production warrants against the petitioners on 07.12.2023 for production of the petitioners and the petitioners remain in lawful custody of learned ASJ-04," the Court's judgment said. .The case against Vivo was filed by the Delhi Police in 2021. The case reportedly involves allegations that the Chinese phone manufacturer used shell companies to remit money outside India between 2014 and 2021. The ED filed its chargesheet in the matter earlier this month..The three petitioners were among those arrested in the case in October this year. They were remanded to ED custody by a Delhi Court, which was extended from time to time till October 18. After this, they were remanded to judicial custody. The three accused claimed that the period of their judicial custody was last extended till December 7 on an application filed by the ED on October 30. They alleged that their further detention in jail beyond December 7 was without any judicial order as required by Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), or any other relevant provision. .Therefore, they filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court seeking their release from jail..The ED refuted these contentions, explaining that it had filed a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) on December 6, 2023. The ED further submitted that the accused were produced via video conference before ASJ-05 on December 7. However, the matter was transferred the same day to ASJ-04 before whom the accused was inadvertently not produced on that day, the Court was told. Therefore, ASJ-04 adjourned the case and issued production warrants. In these circumstances, there was no need for the ED to file an application for an extension of remand or for the court to pass an order for remand extension, the ED submitted. .The Court agreed with the ED's stance.The bench pointed out that even though the accused were not physically brought before the trial court, their legal representatives were present and no objections were raised by any counsel regarding their production warrants.“It is also not the case of the petitioners that prosecution complaint was filed by ED beyond the stipulated period thereby entitling the petitioners for 'default bail.' Also no bail application was moved on behalf of any of the petitioners at that time. In such a situation, the petitioners have to remain in 'custody of court'," the High Court said..In cases where an accused undergoing trial is not physically brought from judicial custody for a legitimate reason and the court issues a production warrant while adjourning the matter, the custody of the accused remains continuous and there is no break in their custody under such circumstances, the Court further held..The Court added that the position would have been different if the court had not issued a production warrant the same day.“In such a situation (where no production warrant is issued), the custody of the accused will not be in continuum and for the break period, it may be illegal,” the Court explained..Therefore, the Court concluded that the three accused were in lawful judicial custody and dismissed their plea. .[Read Judgment]