“ii) Malvinder Mohan Singh, Director of Oscar Investments Limited and Diretor of RHC Holding Private Limited (Contemnor Nos.9 and 2 12) and Shivinder Mohan Singh, Director of Oscar Investments Limited and Director of RHC Holding Private Limited (Contemnor Nos.10 and 13) have knowingly and willfully violated the orders of this Court dated 11.08.2017, 31.08.2017 and 15.02.2018 as continued on 23.02.2018.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/c-a-no-008714-008714-2022/
On the oral request made by learned Counsel for Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, we direct Naresh Kumar, ASI who has brought them to this Court to ensure that both the detenus are permitted to meet their family members till 2.00 P.M., within the Supreme Court premises.
(DMD Advocates) 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013 and Shivinder Mohan Singh, be permitted to meet Mr. Pertinently, the authorities in the Tihar Jails, New Delhi have taken a position that the Applicant’s term of imprisonment of 6 (six) months shall commence from the date of the Order dated 22.09.2022, given that the Order dated 22.09.2022 is silent regarding the date of commencement of the term of imprisonment.
Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would point out that it is evident from the narration of facts which we have already made that the applicant must be treated as being in custody from 03.02.2020. In this connection, she bolsters her contentions with reference to Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. S he would therefore conclude by contending that in the interest of justice also this is a case which requires that this Court clarifies that the period of custody as undergone from 03.02.2020 should be reckoned and therefore in view of the period of imprisonment actually imposed on 22.09.2022, no further custody is required in connection with the case.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/enforcement-of-arbitral-award-courts-legal-analysis/
In the facts of this case, the applicant was in custody admittedly in connection with another case on 15.11.2019 as also on 03.02.2020 and also on 16.03.2020.
No lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is 8 needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439. Custody, in the context of Section 439, (we are not, be it noted, dealing with anticipatory bail under Section 438) is physical control or at least physical presence of the accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the court. In the present case, the police officers applied 9 for bail before a Magistrate who refused bail and still the accused, without surrendering before the Magistrate, obtained an order for stay to move the Sessions Court. The High Court added to the conditions subject to which bail was to be granted and mentioned that the accused had submitted to the custody of the court.
In other words, this Court was not considering a case which involved the application of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, an indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-courts-analysis-on-advocates-on-record-system/
Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel pointed out that at that stage what should have been done had it been a case where he was not being sent back to custody in another case was to enlarge him on bail in the contempt of Court case and this circumstance should therefore signify that he was indeed in custody from 03.02.2020.
Case Title: MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH Vs. SAMEER GEHLAUT (2022 INSC 1202)
Case Number: MA-001902 / 2022
