Satinder Singh Bhasin v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner- Satinder Singh Bhasin under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, CRL.M.A. 7933/2025 (for directions) 2023, seeking various reliefs as recorded in the judgment dated 20th February, 2025. This is a case where a habeas corpus petition was filed by the Petitioner who was stated to have been taken from Delhi by the Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter as ‘U.P.’) Police without following the prescribed procedure.

3. This Court had taken serious note of the conduct of U.P. Police and, on 20th February, 2025 passed various directions as under: “15. The Court had thus directed that the Petitioner, if not released on bail by the ld. Magistrate in Noida, he shall be produced before this Court. Delhi Police was also directed to produce the CCTV footage.

16. Today, Mr. Mittal, ld. Counsel appearing for the UP Police has placed on record the order passed by the concerned CJM yesterday evening i.e., 19th February, 2025 wherein the Court has observed as under:- “िजससेयह��हैिकप्रा/ िपिटशनरक े स��म�माननीयउ�तम�ायालय�ारामात्र�रटिप शन (एस.) 197/2021, सते�िसंहभसीनबनामउ�रप्रदेशरा�एवंअ�सेस���तप णम�हीनहींवरनअिभयु�क े िव��िकसीअ��तंत्रअपर (any other independent offence.) म�काय�वाहीिकयेजानेक े स��म�भीमाननीयसव���ायालयकीपू व�अनुमितआव�कहोनेहेतुआदेिशतिकयागयाहै. िक ं तुिववेचक�ारामाननीयउ�तम�ायालय�ारापूव�अनुमितकाऐ साकोईप्रपत्रप्-पत्रकेसाथप्र�ुतनहींिकयागय माननीयसव���ायालय�ारा�रटिपिटशन (एस.) 197/2021 सते�िसंहभसीनबनामउ�रप्रदेशरा�एवंअ�म�पा�रतआद िदनािकत-06.07.2021 कोद्रि�गतरखते�एअिभयु�सते�िसंहभसीन उफ�मो�ूपु. जसव�िसंहभसीन, िनवासी-डी-24, राजोरीगाड�नथांना- राजोरीगाड�न, िद�ीक े िव�� मु०अ०सं०-74/2025. अ�ग�त धारा-303 (2), 331, 334, 316(2), 331(6), 317(2), 109, 305, 326, भारतीय�ायसंिहता थाना-बीटा-2. गौतमबु�नगरम�प्र�ुत�रमा�प्रापत्रिनर�िकयेजान. िनर�िकयाजाताहै।" TRANSLATION “It manifests that in regard to the Applicant/Petitioner, the prior permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is directed to be taken necessarily not only in this case i.e. Writ Petition (S) (?) No. 197/2021, titled Satendra Singh Bhasin Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. but also in other independent offences in proceeding against the accused. However, no such document pertaining to the prior permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to be filed along with Application by the Investigation Officer Therefore, in view of the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (S) (?) NO. 197/2021, titled Satendra Singh Bhasin Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., the Remand Application filed in connection with the Case (FIR) No. 74/2025, U/s 303(2), 331, 334, 36(2), 331(6), 317(2), 109, 305, 326 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, PS Beta-2, Gautam Budha Nagar against accused Satendra Singh Bhasin alias Montu S/o Late Jaswant Singh Bhasin R/o D-24, Rajouri Garden, PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi is liable to be dismissed, hence stands dismissed.”

17. The Court is also informed that in view of the above order, the police remand has not been extended qua the Petitioner and he has already been released.

18. In terms of the above prescribed protocol, no information appears to have been given to the Delhi Police prior to the arrest of the Petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi. The matter requires a deeper look as none of the other prescribed procedures appears to have been followed. No grounds of arrest also appear to have been communicated at the time of arrest. If the procedures prescribed are not followed, the arrest itself would be contrary to law.

19. Moreover, the dispute between promoters is also presently pending before the NCLT/NCLAT. Certain orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, granting bail in favour of the Petitioner, in previous FIRs are also relied upon by the Petitioner. The prima facie view of the Court is that the steps required were not taken and hence the arrest itself is illegal.

20. The Petitioner is present in the Court. One of the allegations of the Petitioner is that he was physically assaulted and manhandled and the MLC has also been conducted on him. Certain videos are also placed before the Court by the Delhi Police, to argue that a private vehicle was used by the UP Police to pick up the Petitioner even though the personnel who took the Petitioner from Delhi to Noida were not in police clothes. He was also examined and the MLC has been prepared. The MLC has been produced in Court which shows that some injury may have been caused, however, the same is not clear until the X-ray reports and expert opinion is sought.

21. Under these circumstances, though the Petitioner is released, there is a need to ensure that the prescribed protocol for interstate arrests is followed by the UP Police. The Court would also like to examine the CCTV footage to ascertain the manner in which the police from UP/Noida has picked up the Petitioner, without any information to the Delhi Police and as to why private vehicles were used and the UP Police personnel were not in uniforms. Let a status report be filed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, UP, after enquiring into the whole matter before this Court including the following aspects: i. Who were the police personnel who picked up the Petitioner from Delhi? ii. Which was the vehicle used for the said purpose? iii. What does the Medical report conclude after conducting Xray as directed in the MLC.

22. In addition, the Commissioner shall also place on record in the status report, as to – i. Whether any protocol has been agreed to with the Delhi Police in case of Inter-State arrest as directed in the Sandeep Kumer(supra) case?

23. A senior official from the Noida Police shall remain present in Court.

24. List on 5th May, 2025.” As per the above order, a high-level enquiry has been directed by the Court, into the entire incident and directions were given to file a report.

4. The submission of Mr. Vishal Gosain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner in the present application is that the Petitioner has not been called by the U.P. Police for recording of his statement and, therefore, no steps appear to have been taken in this regard. Secondly, he submits that the CCTV footage which is available, would show that the manner in which the Petitioner was removed from Delhi from nearby his office and taken to U.P. ought to be preserved. He further submits that there are various cameras which are installed at public locations including the DND flyway and Connaught Place, the details of which are as under: “ Delhi

1. Main Spot Opposite Shivaji Stadium Shattered Glass Visible

2. Camera at House Number 4