HIDAYAT BEGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14-7-1949, one Kanakmal an itinerant tradesman made a report at 10-30 A. M. at the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Indore City that his wife Laxmibai had disappeared from the house carrying away with her cash amounting to Rs. 1700 and ornaments valued at Rs. 1900. He also stated in the report that he had learnt that Hidayat Begam (applicant) who lived in the neighbourhood used to visit his wife and Bhura her brother used to visit her sister and that Bhura was not to be found at his house. He therefore, suspected the applicant and her brother Bhura to be concerned in the theft committed by his wife.

(2.) Seven weeks after this, on 8-9-1949, the applicant was arrested by the Officer-in. charge of the Sadar Bazar Police Station at 11-30 in the night. Under Section 167, Criminal P, C. the applicant was produced before the additional City Magistrate, Indore City, at 12-10 A. M. on is.9-1949 and an application was made for her further detention in police custody. The charge shown against her in the application for remand was under Section 380 read with Section 109, Indore Penal Code. It may be observed here that her detention in the police custody had exceeded the maximum prescribed limit of twenty-four hours by twelve hours. During the seven weeks preceding her arrest and daring the thirty-six hours that she was in police custody, applicant was not questioned once in respect of the alleged offence. This is a very significant fact.

(3.) The learned Magistrate made an order authorising the woman's detention in police custody till 16th September, and her application for release on bail was rejected. She moved the High Court for being released on bail. The application was sent to the Sessions Judge for disposal. At the hearning of the application before the Sessions Judge, applicant's brother Radhakishan made an affidavit. The reference to it and the observations made thereon by the Sessions Judge appear in the following words in his order dated 239-1949: The application for release on bail was dismissed and it is against this order that the present-petition is directed.