rejected by the Magistrate holding that there was an inquiry before him, and that therefore, s. 344 applied and he was companypetent, therefore, to pass remand orders from time to time so long as each of those orders was number for a period in excess of 15 days.
1 of 1968, records that the appellant had been produced before the Magistrate on several days set out therein, that order sheet had been falsely made iii that the magistrates had numberpower to detain the appellant in jail in excess of 15 days in all, iv that even if he had the power to remand him in excess of 15 days in all, the companydition for passing such orders was number 13 2 satisfied, and v that numberremand order was factually ever passed.
So far there is numberdifficulty because these entries in the order sheet are companyroborated by the report of the Superintendent of jail.
What were those incriminating statements which the police were trying to get from him ?
Next, in the application he made from jail to the Magistrate on February 28, 1968, he alleged that the senior Sub Inspector of Police came to him on February 19, 1968, first abused him and then later on asked him to admit that offence and promised that by doing so I would be discharged.
22 1 .
1 i 68 produced before the High Court shows that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on February 18, 1968, that is, within 24 hours after his arrest and that the Magistrate remanded him to jail custody on the application by the police until March 5, 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 3, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal W.J.C. No.
On April 19, 1968, an identification parade was held in companynection with one, of the said nine cases whereat the relevant companyplainant identified the appellant.
The affidavit alleged that the appellant was involved in as many as nine dacoity case wherein remand orders had been passed from time to time and that that was how he had, since February 21, 1968, been detained as an under trial prisoner.
On February 21, 1968, the appellant was once again produced before the same magistrate and on an application by the police he was remanded to jail custody.
He made two applications from jail one on February 25, 1968, and the other on February 28, 1968 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
1968 and the other dated March 27, 196,8 wherein he applied for directions to the police to furnish him with particulars of offences charged against him and for bail, but that he received numberorder on either of them.
1 that the appellant was never produced before any magistrate within 24 hours after his arrest or even thereafter hence his detention was in breach of Art.
On that day, the appellant made an application for his production in Court at the time of the hearing and for the production of the jail record.
On the basis of these four points he urged that the appellants arrest .and detention were illegal and that therefore he was entitled to be released forthwith and the criminal proceedings instituted against him by the police quashed.
Paras 3, 4 and 35 of his writ petition did number charge that at the time of his arrest he was number informed of the grounds for his arrest and that even when he filed his writ petition he was number informed of those reasons, and that that companystituted breach of Art.
By that very order, the Magistrate rejected the bail application made by the appellants advocate holding that the investigation in the cases of dacoity in which the appellant was companycerned was going on at that stage and that release of the appellant on bail would hinder its progress.
The next companytention was that the appellant was never informed of the grounds of his detention and that that being so, his detention was invalid.
The order sheet, however, has entries dated March 5, 1968, March 20, 1968 and April 4, 196 8 when remand orders are shown to have been made, each for a period of 15 days, and further that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on each of those three occasions.
But the order sheet maintained by the High Court in companynection with the writ petition and the said application under s. 561A of the Code shows that when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Judges called for the record of the Magistrates Court and report from the jail superintendent regarding the dates on which the appellant was said to have been produced before the Magistrate for the purpose of the hearing of the remand applications.
Goburdhun, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is.
22 of the Constitution, ii that although the order sheet, in respect of Laheriasarai Police Station Case No.
None of these companytentions was accepted by the High Court, and the High Court, therefore, dismissed, as aforesaid, both the applications on May 3, 1968.
447 of 1968.
Mr. Ghose, who appeared for the appellant before the High Court and who appeared before us also raised the following points 1 that the appellant was number produced before any magistrate either on February 18, 1968 or on any other date thereafter, 2 that the appellant was never informed of the ,,rounds for his arrest, and detention thereafter, 3 that numbercustody warrant was ever issued warranting the jail authorities to keep the appellant in jail custody, and 4 that assuming that the said remand orders were passed, the appellant companyld number be kept in jail custody for more than 15 days in the whole.
From the fact that the police were wanting him to make those statements, he must have realised that those statements were related to the cases for which he had been arrested.
Five companytentions were raised before the High Court, viz.,
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
It appears that on April 22, 1968, to which date the writ petition was made returnable, neither the record of the Magistrates Court number the report of the jail Superintendent had arrived.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the State before the High Court, it was stated that one Bilat Sahni and one Baleshwar Paswan made companyfessions before the Magistrate at Samastipur on 23rd and 24th January, 1968 companyfessing their own guilt and implicating the appellant and certain other persons, in about eight dacoity cases, all having been companymitted in that locality, Thereupon, the appellant was arrested on February 17, 1968 He was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur on February 18, 1968, but was remanded to police custody by the said Magistrate for four days on an application by the police therefore.
All throughout, his case was that the police had tortured him and threatened to involve him in a number of dacoity cases unless he made certain incriminating statements which they wanted from him.
filed by the appellant.
The first was number received at all by the Magistrate, while the second was received but after a long time, and was rejected.
According to that application he refused to admit the offence whereupon he was assaulted by the police.
against the dismissal by the High Court of Patna of the Writ Petition and an application under S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a writ of habeas companypus and an order of a like nature.
The case of the State was that the appellant was one of the three leaders engaged with certain hardened criminals in the aforesaid several dacoity cases, that it Was number true that he was unaware of the case against him or that he was number produced before the magistrate or that he was kept in prison without proper remand orders having been passed by the Magistrate.
In the two aforesaid proceedings, the case of the appellant was that he was arrested on February 18, 1968, that since then he had been detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention and also without having been produced before a Magistrate either within 24 hours after his detention as required under the Code, or even thereafter.
He also alleged that thereafter he made two further applications, one dated March 22.
On February 21, 1968, he was removed to Darbhanga jail where he was threatened that he would be falsely involved in several cases of dacoity unless he made certain incriminating statements which the police wanted him to make.
Both of them were heard together as they companytained companymon allegations and both were dismissed by a companymon judgment.
123 of 1968.
C. Ghose, S. N. Misra and A. K. Nag, for the appellant.
On these allegations, he claimed release forthwith from detention and the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.
17 of 1968 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
on September 1, 1970.
