1 October 2025 Legal Updates

RELEASE U/S 436A CRPC NOT AUTOMATIC EVEN WHEN OFFENCE DOES NOT ENTAIL DEATH PENALTY: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sunil Maan v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• September 17, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Facts of the Case

• On August 25, 2015, a violent incident occurred inside a jail van transporting undertrial prisoners from Rohini Courts to Tihar Jail. Two prisoners—Vikram @ Paras @ Goldi and Pradeep @ Bhola—were brutally assaulted and strangled to death by fellow inmates, including the applicant Sunil Maan. The assault involved physical beating and strangulation using gamchas (cloths). Post-mortem reports confirmed death due to combined effects of blunt trauma injuries and asphyxia from ligature strangulation.
• An FIR was registered under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC at P.S. Mangol Puri. The applicant was arrested on the same day and has been in judicial custody for over 10 years.

Applicant's Arguments

• Prolonged Detention: The applicant had been in custody for over 10 years without trial completion, violating his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Section 436-A Cr.P.C.: Relying on the provision that mandates release after undergoing half the maximum sentence, the applicant argued he should be released as he had completed more than 10 years (half of the 20-year deemed equivalent of life imprisonment under Section 57 IPC).
• Distinguishable Role: The applicant claimed his role was different from co-accused, as he had no injuries on his body (unlike others who had scratches indicating active participation).
• No Gang Affiliation: Unlike co-accused, he was not implicated in other gang-related cases.
• Good Conduct: He had surrendered timely after interim bail and did not misuse liberty.

State's Arguments

• Gravity of Offence: The case involved brutal custodial murder of two undertrial prisoners—a serious crime against public safety.
• Criminal Antecedents: The applicant was involved in four criminal cases and allegedly associated with the notorious Neeraj Bawania and Tillu Tajpuriya gangs.
• Parity Principle: Granting bail would encourage other co-accused to seek similar relief.
• Public Safety: Releasing the applicant would pose a threat given his alleged gang affiliation.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

1. On Section 436-A Cr.P.C:

The Court held that Section 436-A does not apply to offences punishable with death. Since Section 302 IPC (murder) prescribes death as one of the punishments, the applicant could not claim the benefit of this provision. This limitation was expressly noted in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.

2. On Prolonged Detention:

While acknowledging the 10-year detention, the Court noted that only 29 of 70 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Delay was not solely due to prosecutorial inertia but also due to:

• Two co-accused absconding during interim bail
• COVID-19 pandemic disrupting court proceedings
• Heavy case load of the Trial Court

3. On Trial Timeline:

The Trial Court reported that approximately 18 months would be required to complete the trial, with earnest efforts being made to expedite proceedings.

4. On Role and Merits:

The Court refused to conduct a "mini-trial" at the bail stage or compare individual roles, as this would prejudice either party with several witnesses yet to be examined.

Decision

Bail application dismissed.

PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON COURIER AGENCY FOR NOT REPORTING SUSPICIOUS CONSIGNMENT TO CUSTOMS: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• M/s Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• 25th September, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain

Facts

• Dart Air Services, a registered courier company, challenged orders arising from an incident on 28th December 2018. The Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch (SIIB) discovered that a consignee, Smt. Sayra Ansari, was receiving parcels from her husband in London containing cut cloth pieces with measurements. These were being stitched at her residence in India and sent back to London for his tailoring business. The parcels were incorrectly declared as "gifts" despite being commercial goods.
• Based on SIIB's report, the Customs Department issued a Show Cause Notice on 1st March 2019, suspending the petitioner's registration immediately. An inquiry officer later submitted a report concluding that the courier company had not violated Regulations 12(1)(iii), (v), and (vii) of the Courier Imports and Exports Regulations, 2010. However, the Commissioner of Customs issued a disagreement note on 31st May 2019, disagreeing with the inquiry report.
• Subsequently, on 26th August 2019, the Commissioner passed an order refraining from revoking the registration but imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for failure to exercise due diligence.

Issues

• Whether the Commissioner of Customs had jurisdiction to impose a penalty despite the inquiry report exonerating the courier company?
• Whether the courier company violated its obligations under Regulation 12(1)(v) of the Regulations, 2010?

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that once the inquiry report held they were not in violation of any regulation, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose any penalty under Regulation 13.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent relied on Regulation 13A(7), which allows the Commissioner to pass such orders as deemed fit after considering the inquiry report and representations.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The Court held that:

• Inquiry Report Not Binding: Under Regulation 13A(7), the inquiry report is not binding on the Commissioner, who can pass orders as deemed appropriate after considering the report.
• Violation Established: The courier company failed to exercise due diligence required under Regulation 12(1)(v). Commercial goods were being disguised as gifts, and the company failed to notice this pattern despite repeated shipments between the same parties.
• Penalty Justified: Under Regulation 14, if an authorized courier contravenes provisions or fails to comply with obligations, a penalty up to Rs. 50,000/- can be imposed. The Commissioner's action was well within jurisdiction.
• Responsibility of Courier Agencies: Courier companies have significant obligations to ensure due diligence, verify client identities, and report suspicious transactions to authorities.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and directing its deposit within four weeks.

Legal Principles

• Inquiry reports under administrative regulations are recommendatory, not binding on adjudicating authorities
• Courier agencies must exercise due diligence and cannot turn a blind eye to suspicious transactions
• Regulatory authorities have discretion to impose penalties for non-compliance even when inquiry reports are favourable