But it may be stated that the order of remand passed on August 20, 1970 was effective till August 28, 1970.
C.I./71 Though the State of Uttar Pradesh appeared before us through Counsel on August 27, 1970, when the above order was passed, it was number brought to our numberice that the remand order passed by the City Magistrate, Lucknow, on August 20, 1970 was expiring by midnight of August 28, 1970 number were any directions in that companynection sought for from this Court at that time.
Sir, I have the honour to state, that Shri Raj Narain, M.P. was received in this jail on transfer from District Jail, Lucknow, for production in Supreme Court in companynection with his Writ Petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
was given by VAIDIALINGAM, J. Hidayatullah, C.J. Mr. Raj Narain M.P. was arrested on August 20, 1970 under ss.
On the letter of August 28, 1970, of the Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi, this Court made an order on the same day which has been set out in full in the order of the learned Chief Justice.
He raised various grounds against the legality of his arrest and detention and prayed for being released forthwith.
Note in the Jail Warrant and inform him.
315 of 1970 for Habeau Corpus challenging his arrest on August 20, 1970 and his detention in the District Jail, Lucknow.
315 of 1970, the petitioner impleaded the State of U.P., the District Magistrate, Lucknow, the Superintendent of District Jail, Lucknow and the Union of India as respondents.
From that order the following points emerge Mr. Rai Narain was remanded to the custody to which he belongs, namely, the U.P. authorities The U.P. authorities were at liberty to take the petitioner to Lucknow pending fixation of the further date for the hearing of his writ petition.
If the investigation.
315/ 70 dated August 28, 1970 Tiem sic PM Shri Raj Narain M.P. remanded to further jail custody upto Sept. Ten Nineteen Seventy.
315/70 Date, 28 3 Shri Raj Narain M.P. remanded to further jail custody upto September 1st 1 9 70 under orders of C.M. Lucknow dated 28 8 70.
It stated Habeas Corpus Petition No.
P.C., a companyy of which had already been served on him and that the petitioner filed a lengthy reply thereto.
By the second order which was companymunicated by telegram, he was remanded to further jail custody upto September 10, 1970.
107/117, Criminal Procedure Code, and was remanded to jail custody under warrant issued by the City Magistrate, Lucknow.
It was only on August 28, 1970, at 4 P.M. when the Court was about to rise for the day that a letter of the Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi of the same date, received by the Assistant Registrar of this Court, seeking directions regarding detention of the petitioner, was brought to our numberice.
171 of 1969 decided on Sept. 25.1969.
simultaneously this Court was informed by District Magistrate that remand of Mr. Raj Narain M.P. was extended to September 10, 1970 by the City Magistrate.
As we were inclined to hold that the remand orders had number been passed according to law and in companysequence the further detention of the petitioner was illegal, this Court passed on the same day the following order By majority, we hold that the custody of Mr. Raj Narain is valid and that he is number entitled to release on his fresh petition.
On August 27, 1970, this Court passed the following order Shri Raj Narains petition is number to be listed tomorrow and he is number to be produced in Court tomorrow.
He was produced in the Court on 25th, 26th and 27th August 1970.
On August 31, 1970, this Court issued a numberice to the Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi, to produce before the Court on September 1, 1970, the warrants under which Mr. Raj Narain is presently detained.
It is further stated by the City Magistrate that as the petitioner did number make any application for being released on bail during pendency of the inquiry, he was remanded to jail.
32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
The City Magistrate Lucknow .also telegraphed to the Superintendent, Tihar Central Jail the .following message .
The following day the message was companyrected to read September tenth instead of September first.
A similar situation had arisen in the case of Mr. Madhu Limaye when his remand expired and, he became a free man, because we companyld number keep him under our orders in detention beyond the period originally fixed by the Magistrate.
235 Sup.
The petitioner has in the present writ petition prayed for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release on the ground that his further detention is illegal.
The City Magistrate, Lucknow, passed two orders, viz.,
It is clear from that letter that the judicial remand of the petitioner ordered by the City Magistrate, Lucknow would expire on that day and orders were solicited whether the petitioner is to be detained further under orders of this Court or whether his further judicial remand is to be taken from the City Magistrate, Lucknow.
By the first order, which is stated to have been companymunicated by wireless message, the petitioner was remanded to further jail custody upto September 1, 1970.
in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time mentioned therein and numbersuch person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of the magistrate.
The Judgment of M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MITTER, A. N. RAY and 1.
Instead, he was kept in the Central Jail, New Delhi.
315 of 1970.
ode on August 28, 1970 and another on August 29, 1970, Both the orders have been quoted in the order of the learned Chief Justice.
A petition for a writ of habeas companypus for his release is pending in this Court, and under our orders, August 22, 1970, he has been transferred to Tihar Central Jail Delhi.
He has stated that numberorders of remand were companymunicated to him before midnight of August 28, 1970 and that the two remand orders are quite inconsistent with each other.
The more serious ground of challenge in respect of the remand orders is that they are illegal as they have been passed by the City Magistrate, without his being produced before the City Magistrate and behind his back.
He was produced in this Court on the 25th, 26th and 27th August, 1970.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
His original remand,, as ordered by the City Magistrate, was till August 28, 1970.
On September 1, 1970, on behalf of the jail authorities, the wireless message received on August 28, 1970 and the telegram of August 29, 1970 were brought to our numberice.
That letter has been set out by the learned Chief Justice in his order.
315 of 1970, who were represented by companynsel, had brought to our numberice on August 27, 1970 when this Writ Petition was adjourned to a later date that the remand order of the City Magistrate was expiring on August 28, 1970 and had sought directions, this Court would have, on that date itself, passed an order similar to the one, which was actually passed in the evening of August 28, 1970.
315 of 1970.
Judicial remand of Shri Raj Narain has been granted upto 28 8 70 by the City Magistrate and Magistrate 1st Class, Lucknow, vide enclosure companyy of the order dated 21 8 70.
Orders of the Court are reproduced below Shri Raj Narains petition is number to be listed tomorrow and he is number to be produced in Court tomorrow.
On August 28, 1970, we were informed at 4 p.m. that his ,remand would expire at midnight of the 28th August,, 1970, and that the Superintendent, Central Jail, Delhi would number be able to detain Mr. Raj Narain thereafter.
He may, however, be kept in Delhi.
When a person under detention has companye with a grievance that his detention is illegal and invalid and seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus and is produced before this Court, the prisoner companyes directly under the custody of this Court.
On August 21, 1970 when the said writ petition came up for preliminary hearing, this Court directed issue of rule nisi returnable on August 25, 1970 and further ordered that the petitioner was to be produced before the Court on that day.
We shall give our reasons later.
that case the respondents would have had ample opportunity to take the petitioner to Lucknow, for producing him before the City Magistrate for a further order of remand, if he companysidered it necessary.
The circumstances leading to the filing of the present petition may be briefly stated thus The petitioner has already filed a writ petition No.
Petition under Art.
The respondent did,not appear ORDER By majority, we hold that the custody of Mr. Raj Narain is valid and that he is number entitled to release on his fresh petition.
The only order was an endorsement on the warrant Remanded to Judicial sic till 11th March 1953.
He has attacked his detention after midnight of August 28, 1970 as illegal and companytrary to the directions given by this Court.
330 of 1970.
Now it has been ordered by the Supreme Court dated 27 8 70 that he is number to be produced in the Court and that he may be kept in Delhi.
The petitioner accordingly was transferred from the District Jail, Lucknow, to the Central Jail, New Delhi, for being produced before this Court.
He may however be kept in Delhi.
The following intimation from the Superintendent was received in this companynection by the Registry Sub Production of Shri Raj Narain, P. in the Supreme Court, Writ Petition No.
The companytentions raised by the parties in this writ petition are pending adjudication by this Court.
The, same day a wireless message was received by the Superintendent, Tihar Central Jail from the District Magistrate Lucknow.
P. Singh, for the petitioner.
was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. Dissenting Opinion of J. M. SHELAT and ,C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
The same situation has arisen number and we can only make this order that he shall be remanded back to the custody to which he belongs and that he may be taken to U.P. if so desired, to be produced before us on the next date of hearing to be fixed in this case.
However, the position is that the petitioner was number taken to Lucknow number produced before the City Magistrate.
If the Superintendent of the Central Jail, New Delhi, does number receive the fresh order of remand by midnight of August 28, 1970, the petitioner should number be detained as directed by this Court and that he should be set at liberty at midnight.
Note in the jail warrant and inform him.
If the fresh remand order is number received by the Superintendent of the Jail by midnight, the petitioner shall number be detained as directed by this Court, and he shall be set at liberty at midnight.
In Writ Petition No.
