Sri Mehrotra was number the trail Magistrate in this case.
Sri C.L. Chhabra, Deputy Seperintendent of police.
His case is that at the time of his arrest, he was number informed as to the cause of his arrest number was he produced before any Magistrate at any time, but yet he is companytinued to be detained.
On November 20, 1966, it was said that the petitioner was again remanded to judicial custody by Sri R. N. Melhotra, Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi.
Anal from Jail.
It was number for the purpose of trying the petitioner, Sri Mehrotra had been to the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.
The petitioner was arrested on November 7,1966.
Here again, the petitioner was number produced before the learned Magistrate either in his office or in his house, but the learned Magistrate went to the Central Jail, Tihar, wherein the petitioner was lodged evidently for granting him further remand In justification of his adopting such a companyrse, Sri Mehrotra cites the numberification of the Lt.
F. 2 216 /66 Home P dated November 1966.
The application of the pentitioner came up before a bench of this Court on January 9, 1967.
He prays that he may be set at liberty as his detention, according to him, is an illlegal detention.
On numbere of those occasions, the police had cared to submit either the police diary or companyy of any entry therein along with the remand report.
In fact, neither the records of the investigation number the remand orders said to have been made by the various Magistrates were produced before the Court till the respondents were specifically directed to do so.
He says that he was arrested when he was attending a public meeting organised by Gau Raksha Mahabhian Samiti near Parliament Street Police Station.
He had been there for granting a further remand to the petitioner.
habeas corpus was submitted by the petitioner Ram Rishi.
The orignal remand reports were produced before me for my perusal.
These acts of the respondents, according to him, amount to a companytravention of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
At that time, numberease against the petitioner was pending before him, number even a first information report was pending before him.
As they were in Urdu, I got them translated into English and as desired by the learned Government Advocate, I ordered the return of the originals to him While retaining with me the English translations.
Along with the teturn, numberdocuments were produced.
On that day, numberice of the petition was order 4 The respondents made their return on January 17, 1967.
At present, he is held in judicial custody in Central Jail, New Delhi.
Sri Chhabra swore in his affidavit that the detenu was arrested on November 7, 1966, while he was participating in the demonstration outside the Parliament house.
New Delhi.by the Magistrates mentioned there in, to try cases under Section 188 1.P.C. against persons arrested in companynection with the recent demonstration against company slsughter.
Parliament Street police Station, New Delhi, filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents.
Hegde, C.J. This petition for awrit of.
Under that numberification, a companyy of which has been produced before me, the Lt.
Sri Anad was the Magistrate at New Delhi where the Concerned incidents took place.
