Delhi Court Reserves Order On Police Custody Of Hashim Baba, Wife Zoya In MCOCA Case

Delhi’s Patiala House court on Friday reserved its order on the police custody of Anwar Khan alias Chacha, Hasim Baba alias Asim, Sameer alias Baba, and Zoya Khan in a Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) case.

Delhi police sought a 10-day remand of these accused persons.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Chander Jit Singh reserved order after hearing submissions by Delhi Police and counsel for accused persons.

The court has listed the matter for order on the custody of the accused on July 21 in view of the submissions that an SLP is listed in the Supreme Court against the re-arrest of the accused.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akhand Pratap Singh for the special cell submitted that these accused have been arrested in a MCOCA case linked with the murder of a businessman, Sunil Jain, in the Farsh Bazar area.

The murder is the outcome of the organised crime syndicate. During the investigation, the names of these four accused individuals surfaced, as submitted by the SPP.

It was also submitted that the Remand was required to unearth the modus operandi of the syndicate. Some of the members of the syndicate had already fled the country.

On the other hand, advocate Tarun Rana appeared on behalf of the accused, Zoya.

He submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed before the SC against the order of the High Court.

It was further submitted that the SLP number has been generated. The matter is likely to be listed before the SC on Monday.

The counsel submitted that they will make their submissions on July 21 at 2 pm, subject to the order of the Supreme Court.

On July 16, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the petition of the accused persons challenging their re-arrest in the present case.

The High Court ruled that a person cannot claim immunity from re-arrest merely because their initial arrest was vitiated on procedural grounds.

“The re-arrest, if carried out after curing such defects and in accordance with law, is not impermissible,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

“In criminal law, procedural safeguards are essential to protect liberty, but they cannot be turned into a shield to defeat lawful investigation into heinous crimes,” the Court held, underlining that “a lapse by the police in the first arrest does not create a bar against subsequent arrest once the legal requirements are fulfilled.”

The petition was filed by Anwar Khan alias Chacha, Hasim Baba alias Asim, Sameer alias Baba, and Zoya Khan through a team of advocates including Anurag Jain, MM Khan, Amit Chadha, Atin Chadha, Munisha Chadha, and Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, and others.

They sought a declaration that their re-arrest on June 10, 2025, in FIR of 2024 related to the murder of one Sunil Jain was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The petitioners contended that their earlier arrest, declared “non-est” on May 13, 2025, by the Special Judge due to failure to supply written grounds of arrest, barred their re-arrest without fresh material. They alleged that the police had circumvented earlier court orders by re-arresting them without a sufficient basis, thereby violating their rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

However, Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, along with Special Public Prosecutor Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh and others, appearing for the State, argued that the earlier release was due to a technical lapse and not for lack of incriminating material.

The State submitted that fresh grounds of arrest were provided during the re-arrest and procedural safeguards were fully complied with.

The bench of Justice Swarna Kamta Sharma, agreeing with the State’s position, noted that “the petitioners cannot be allowed to derive advantage from procedural lapses committed earlier by investigating officers. The liberty of an individual is protected, but not to the extent of frustrating the course of justice in serious criminal cases like those under MCOCA.”

The Court relied on judgments including Kavita Manikikar v. CBI, Vicky Bharat Kalyani v. State of Maharashtra, and Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam to affirm that re-arrest is legally tenable if done by following due process.

The Court also observed that in the present case, sufficient material existed against the petitioners, who have extensive criminal histories, and their alleged role in a larger crime syndicate was backed by specific evidence.

The High Court upheld the judicial remand orders dated June 11 and June 16, as well as the Special Judge’s July 4 order affirming the legality of the re-arrest.

The Court concluded: “The petitioners’ initial arrest was declared invalid only on technical grounds. Once procedural irregularities were cured and grounds of arrest were meaningfully furnished, their re-arrest cannot be held illegal.” (ANI)