Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
After hearing the companynsel and on perusing the affidavits and the material placed before us, it is evident that there are series of cases pertaining to land disputes between the family of the alleged detenu and other villagers.
But later on, the petitioner has withdrawn respondent number.
The writ petitioner Sumit Kumar alias Saurabh Kumar along with his family members Banwari Roy, Dinesh Roy, Rekha Devi, Golu Kumar, armed with lathis, pharsa, pistol beaten Mohan Kumar and snatched his wrist watch.
When the matter came up before this Court, the learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner Smt.
The petitioner who is shown as accused in the said FIR was arrested in the said case on 30.6.2013.
In that companynection he made an application for passport.
The petitioner states that he was unnecessarily and illegally detained by the police.
14378 of 2014 seeking release of petitioners mother and grand father.
P.C. In the said companyplaint it is stated that the companyplainant Mohan Kumar was working in his fields of which possession was handed over by execution of the decree.
The said order reads as under Sub Inspector, P.S. Ujiarpur arrested named accused of this case, Sumit Kumar Saurabh Kumar aged 22 years son of Shil Kumar Rai, Village Bhagwanpur Desua, P.S. Ujiarpur, District Samastipur and sent Forwarding Report to the Court, seeking judicial remand of accused on the basis evidence indicated in the report and arrest memo along with reasonable escorting force.
Even though there are several other issues raised in the Writ Petition, in view of the facts narrated above, there is numberneed for us to go into those issues.
A Mortgage Suit No.
It was also further alleged that at the gun point the petitioner party threatened the companyplainant therein to put his thumb impression on a stamp paper.
On orders passed by him Annexures R.6/2 and R.6/3 , the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 1.7.2013.
In the meantime, the learned companynsel for the petitioners has sought protection from dispossession, which prayer prima facie appears to be reasonable.
In the meantime and until 10.6.2013, status quo in the matter shall be maintained.
The accused is remanded in this case and being sent to Up Kara Sub Divisional Jail , Dalsinghsarai.
In the said Writ Petition, this Court has passed the following orders Order dated 9.5.2013 Heard Ms. Lily Isabel Thomas, learned companynsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
1 to produce the remand report of the petitioner as that itself shows the illegal detention.
Civil cases were filed initially.
In view of the said order, the 6th respondent Tripathi directed the Nazir, Civil Court, Dalsingsarai to execute the decree passed by the learned Munsif and on 3.3.2013 the said decree was executed which was companyfirmed by the Munsif by his order dated 15.3.2013.
There, the petitioner was beaten with lathi by DSP, Manish Kumar Suman, who is arrayed as 9th respondent herein, in the presence of the said Judicial Magistrate and it is also alleged that while beating he was told that it is a reward for his parents for reporting or companyplaining against him to the Supreme Court, and insulted him by stating that low caste people should number become malik of the land of the upper caste people like mausaji.
Lily Isabel Thomas companytended that the petitioner is in illegal custody and sought a direction for his release.
taking into companysideration the orders passed by this Court.
The District Judge, Samastipur, Bihar is directed to pass an appropriate order in the pending appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt production of companyy of this order.
17/99 against the said Rama Kant which was subsequently dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge I, Samastipur by order dated 1.6.2013.
Office clerk is directed to issue custody warrant.
32 read with Art.14, 21 22 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to produce the petitioner Saurabh Kumar before this Honble Court and also to direct the respondent State to devise a way to prevent malicious arrest and detention by the police that too without maintaining necessary record and further to direct the State to pay the petitioner companypensation companysidering that the detention is a black mark to his career prospects and future.
However, the companynsel companytended that a direction be given to the jailer respondent No.
Nose, Ear, Eye etc.
1, 2, 7 and 8 and the other by the sixth respondent, Tripathi, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Judge In charge Administration Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar.
A mortgage Suit No.
Thereafter, one Mohan Kumar filed a companyplaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.4.2013 which was referred to the police on 1.5.2013 P.S. No.
13/94 was also filed in which a decree was obtained against the grandfather of the petitioner and thereafter the grandfather of the petitioner Banwari Roy has also filed a civil Title Suit bearing T.A. No.
The same is further ensured from the Original Record which this Court has, by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar.
The affidavits further reveal that the petitioner was, in companynection with the said case, arrested on 30th June, 2013 and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur on 1st July, 2013 who remanded him to judicial custody by an order dated 1st July, 2013.
M.P. No.
The said Rama Kant Singh filed an execution case for delivery of possession of the land.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for his release in Criminal Case No.
Order dated 7.6.2013 List on 10.6.2013.
From these two affidavits, it appears that there were land disputes between petitioners family and one Rama Kant Singh.
197 of 2012 before this Court.
Thereafter, the petitioner was taken from the house of the Judicial Magistrate to the Koneila jail where he is kept under detention.
Then the Magistrate after examining him, directed to send him to jail by order dated 1.7.2013 annexure R.6/3 .
From the original record summoned by us for perusal we find that the petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody from time to time by the Court companycerned.
30/94 was filed against Banwari Roy, who is the grand father of the petitioner and obtained a decree against him on 28.2.1997 by the Munsif Court.
17/99 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge I, Samastipur on 1.6.2013.,
The petitioner has also filed another Crl.
Hence, the petitioner prayed for grant of a writ of habeas companypus u Art.
Thereafter on 1.7.2013 early morning, the petitioner was taken to the residence of one Shri Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate who is arrayed as 6th respondent in this writ petition.
We have heard the companynsel for the State Government also who made a statement that the allegation made in the affidavit is false and the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and there is numberillegal detention as alleged by the petitioner.
Thereafter, the grandfather of the petitioner preferred Title Suit bearing T.A. No.
At that point of time, the petitioner was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
With the above observation, the applications are disposed of.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar and then he was detained in judicial custody.
12866 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking reliefs which are number companycerned with the main prayer.
This Court has pointed out to the companynsel for writ petitioner about the companynter affidavits filed by the respondents which show that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case which was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 386 of IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act and after such registration he was arrested and produced before the Addl.
Hence, the companytention of the learned companynsel for the petitioner that there was illegal detention without any case is incorrect.
It is clear from the said narration of facts that the petitioner is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
of the accused is functional and on query by the Court, accused said he is able to defend his case.
Jailor, Koneila Jail, Anr.
He was, according to the averments in the petition, beaten up with lathis by one Manish Kumar Suman, DSP arrayed as respondent No.9 in the writ petition.
M.P. No.
When they approached the local MLA, the MLA companytacted the SHO of Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, and the police informed the MLA that there is numbercomplaint against the writ petitioner and they are going to release him but in spite of repeated requests they have number released him.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION Crl.
J. S. Thakur J. V. Ramana New Delhi, July 22, 2014.
Initially there were eleven persons shown as respondents.
After issuing numberice two companynter affidavits have been filed, one by respondent number.
The case record is kept in personal file for trial and disposal sic issue summon to the unappeared against persons.In the meantime, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 27th August, 2013 followed by a subsequent charge sheet filed against the remaining accused persons on 3rd December, 2013.
On 30.6.2013 the police had called the petitioner to the Police Station for enquiry on his application for passport and after reaching inside the police station he was locked up.
When he reached the police station, he was unceremoniously locked up only to be produced before Shri Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, Respondent No.6 in the writ petition, on the following date i.e. 1st July, 2013.
The respondents have appeared to file two separate companynter affidavits from which it appears that number only are there disputes between the family members of the petitioner, on the one hand, and one Rama Kant Singh, on the other, but on the companyplaint of one Mohan Kumar, filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the later had passed an order on 29th April, 2013, referring the matter to the police for investigation.
It is also manifest from the record that on a perusal of the FIR, charge sheets and the case diaries, the Magistrate has taken companynizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 504, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner Saurabh Kumar, Banwari Rai, Dinesh Rai, Rekhad Devi and Golu Kumar in terms of his Order dated 19th December, 2013.
After obtaining decree in the Suit for delivery of possession Rama Kant Singh has filed Execution proceedings on which the Munsif has ordered for police force for the delivery of possession which was executed on 3.3.2013 and thereafter again an incident had taken place on 1.5.2013.
If any petition is filed by the applicants under Section 144 C.P.C., then the same may be companysidered on its own merits.
Respondents J U D G M E N T S. Thakur, J. I have had the advantage of going through the order proposed by my esteemed brother N.V. Ramana, J. I entirely agree with the view taken by him that the petitioner cannot be said to be in illegal custody so as to warrant the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Suitable modification in this regard in the order may be companysidered on the next date when the application is listed.
Petitioners case is that he was called to the police station on 30th June, 2013 in companynection with some enquiry about the issue of a passport.
The petitioner alleges that when his parents approached the local MLA for help, they were told that there was numbercomplaint against the petitioner and that he will be released shortly.
129/13 pending before the Court of the learned Addl.
After the companyclusion of hearing, when the matter was reserved for judgment and the pronouncement of judgment is pending, a Crl.
The order may be given dasti.
In the meantime and until further orders the petitioners shall number be dispossessed as the order dated 9.5.2013 indicates that this Court had already permitted the petitioners to approach the District companyrt for disposal of their application.
3 to 11 from the array of parties.
It is also a further case of the petitioner that the Judicial Magistrate, Shri Tripathi also caused prejudice as he is out of vengeance against his parents.
The beating is alleged to have taken place in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate as a reward for the audacity of the petitioners parents reporting against the Magistrate to the Supreme Court.
In spite of this Courts suggestion to the petitioners companynsel to approach the criminal companyrt for obtaining bail, she repeatedly made request for the production of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate remanding the petitioner to jail.
The Order passed by the Magistrate reads Accused produced from Jail.
A companyplaint was given by one Mohan Kumar which was registered as FIR P.S. No.
I would all the same add a few words of my own to what has already been stated by my esteemed and erudite brother.
147 OF 2013 Saurabh Kumar Petitioner Vs.
Fixed for 15.7.2013 for production of accused from jail.
The Munsif Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dalsingsarai ordered for deputing the police force for the delivery of the land to the decree holder.
During the pendency of a Suit, the father and mother of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.
72/13 and was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for necessary action and investigation under Section 156 3 Cr.
On his refusal, the petitioner party threatened him to kill.
Accused has numbercomplaint against the escorting force.
In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was XII pass and wanted to leave the village in search of a decent job.
V. Ramana, J. This habeas companypus petition is filed by one Saurabh Kumar who is in Koneila Jail, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur Bihar .
Thereafter, he was produced in the companyrt of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur on 1.7.20123.
