KRISHNA BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been forwarded to this Court from the Central Jail, Patna, where the petitioner, Krishna Bahadur, has been under detention in connection with Patna Kotwali P. S. Case No. 91 (1) 61 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered on the 29th January, 1967, upon a report made by one Badri Prasad Bajak to the effect that the petitioner had committed theft in respect of certain clothes from a laundry which the informant was running in Krishna Chowk Dharamshala at Mithapore. The case of the petitioner is that although more than three years have since elapsed, the Investigation Officer of the case has not submitted the final form for reason best known to him. It has further been stated that every 14th or 15th day the petitioner is being sent to Court lock-up and again sent back to the judicial custody at Patna Central Jail without being produced before any Magistrate, and in this manner a long period of over 37 months have elapsed. "Still the I. O. of the case is sitting idle over the submission of the final form of the case. The kind attention of the learned S.D.O., Patna and District and Sessions Judge, Patna was drawn towards the delay over the submission of the final form by the I. O. of the case but bore no fruits". According to the petitioner, his judicial confinement for more than 37 months without trial is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner, therefore, prays that an order be passed for his discharge in the case and that he should be set at liberty immediately.

(2.) We have looked into the Magistrate's record relating to the case in connection with which the petitioner is under detention. The order-sheet contains a large number of orders in more or less identical terms to the effect that the accused is produced, but the final form not having been received, it is being adjourned to be put up after 15 days. For example, on 25-1-1968, approximately one year after the petitioner was arrested and produced in Court, the following order was passed :--

(3.) It will thus be seen that it is not correct to say, as has been stated in the prisoner's application, that he was not produced before any Magistrate, but merely sent from the Jail to the Court lock-up and back again to the Jail. At the same time it is abundantly clear that the Investigating Officer of the case has been sitting idle over the question of submission of the final form ever since January 1967. The Magistrate's record is wholly silent as to the reason for the exasperating delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in submitting the final form. It may be mentioned that at the time when the present rule was issued by a Bench of this Court on the 14th April, 1970, it was observed :--