Read Time: 06 minutes

Delhi Court grants 3 days Police custody in the matter of Navneet Kalra, accused of Hoarding and Black Marketing of Oxygen Concentrators in the National Capital.

Metropolitan Magistrate, Archana Beniwal, upon hearing the arguments of Advocate Vineet Malhotra for the petitioner and Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Shri Anil Srivastava for the State, allowed the Police for a custodial interrogation of the Accused for 3 days against 5 days sought by the Police.

The matter is now listed on May 20, 2021.

This development comes in after he was arrested late evening yesterday.

During the course of hearing, Counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that all transactions were made through banking channels and there was no case made against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, in the absence of any Order to that effect. It was added that all essential items (laptop, mobile phone), which are sought for in the application made by the Police, is already in their custody and it shall serve no purpose to direct the petitioner for a custodial interrogation.

The Counsel emphasized that before making an application to seek custodial interrogation, the police should have a well-founded case.

In his advanced arguments, Adv. Malhotra said, “Most of this arguments (PP) are as if I have filed my Bail Application. They already have my phone. They already have my bank account details. They relied upon Narender Maan's judgment, but in this case manufacturer is very well known.”

Drawing attention to the alleged mala fides of the investigating agency, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the IO was making calls to the purchasers of Oxygen Concentrators and pushing them to file complaint against Kalra; “As an officer of the Court, I inform that I also purchased a concentrator and I received a call by the IO asking me to make a complaint against Navneet Kalra. This is what is happening Mi Lord.”

Reliance was placed on observations of Learned CMM, Arun Kumar Garg in the Bail order of Matrix Employees and the Delhi High Court Remand Rules; Rule no. 4,5,7,8.

Public Prosecutor, Mr. Srivastava placed reliance on exceptions to High Powered Committee Recommendations, submitting that present case was fit to be directed for police remand. Reference was also made to the order of Learned ASJ, Shri Sandeep Garg, denying Anticipatory Bail to the accused.

“We have to look into the money trap, inducement made by them”, submitted the learned PP.

Earlier, the matter was heard by Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court, against the order of learned ASJ. Exhaustive submissions were made by the Defence. Arguments for the prosecution was listed on Tuesday, May 18.

Senior Advocate(s) Dr. Singhvi and Vikas Pahwa represented the Petitioner before the High Court.