Delhi High Court


Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma CJ and Subramonium Prasad, J. denied relief seeking Satyendra Jain (‘respondent 5') as a person of unsound mind and subsequently demanding his disqualification from being a member of the Legislative Assembly and apparently the Minister in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Court observed that the Criminal Procedure Code, being a code in itself, has remedy for all contingencies and thus, prosecution faced by Satyendra Jain shall be in accordance with law.

Respondent 5-Satyendra Jain is facing criminal prosecution pursuant to Registration of FIR registered on 24-08-2017 at Police Station: Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption-1, New Delhi for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of the Penal Code. He was arrested on 30-05-2022 and he was sent to the custody of the Enforcement Directorate.

Respondent 5 further moved a bail application before the Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi and during the arguments it was placed on record by the Additional Solicitor General that the Respondent 5 has stated before the Enforcement Directorate office that after the severe case of COVID, he does not remember many things like the signatures, and he also does not remember the name of the trust or organization he is a member of. The petitioner has gone to the extent of stating that respondent 5 has himself declared that he has lost his memory.

The petition through the instant petition has sought declaration of Respondent 5, a person of unsound mind and subsequently his disqualification from being a member of the Legislative Assembly and apparently the Minister in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. A direction was also sought regarding the constitution of a medical board to analyze the mental condition of Respondent 5.

The Court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a complete code in itself which provides a mechanism in respect of investigation, inquiry and trial. The Code of Criminal Procedure caters to all contingencies, and it is for the prosecution/ court to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Thus, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court held that it cannot declare the respondent 5 as a person of unsound mind and cannot disqualify him from being a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi in the facts and circumstances of the case.

[Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, WP (C) No. 11855 of 2022, decided on 16-08-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Rudra Vikram Singh & Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner;

Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional, Advocate, for the Respondent;

Solicitor General with Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Rishav Dubey, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. Kunjala Bhardwaj, Mr. Madhav Bajaj & Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Advocates, for the Respondent/ UOI.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.