MAHESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1984-8-50
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (FROM: JAIPUR)
Decided on
August 28,1984
MAHESH CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KANA V. STATE [REFERRED TO]BENI MADHAVA V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
TAJU KHAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RATI RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LAKSHMI BRAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KHINVDAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KALAYANI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2000-10-32] [REFERRED TO]MAHAVEER VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATHRAO S/O LAXMANRAO DUDHATE AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-443] [REFERRED]
SYED TANZEEM AHMED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-117] [REFERRED TO]
YASHODAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
SOMAN ACHARI VS. SABU JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2003-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA SINGHHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-156] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLENATH J DHAMANKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAMIDI VENU MADHAV VS. RAMA KANTH REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2009-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
FELIX OHIMAIN EVBOROKHAI VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-8-260] [REFERRED TO]
SADHWI PRAGYA SINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SAMAR DUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-45] [DISTINGUISHED]
ALOK GUPTA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
DORAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
State of Himachal Pradesh VS. Deen Mohd [LAWS(HPH)-1998-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ANIL KUMAR SAMDUTT NAGPAL [LAWS(BOM)-1996-6-148] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU DUTT VS. GOVIND DAS [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SINGH SON OF SRI RAMBADAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
ALIMUDDIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET SHARMA VS. SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-221] [REFERRED TO]
UTCHALA JAYARAMI REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1993-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1989-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSWAROOP VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHANTA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1989-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANTA JANA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1993-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
DUREI BEHERA VS. SURATHA BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-1986-9-11] [RELIED ON]
V K SOMAN ACHARI VS. SABU JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2006-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
V K SOMAN ACHARI VS. SABU JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2005-9-2] [RELIED ON]
JUDGEMENT
K.S. SIDHU, J. -
(1.)This Full Bench has been constituted to deal with a number of connected references, calling for answers to certain questions of law, arising out of several bail applications pending before different single Benches of this Court. We may state here a few facts which would be helpful in appreciating the background resulting in the making of these references, and defining for ourselves the exact nature of the controversy.
(2.)Mahesh Chand, Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh are the petitioners, respectively, in the applications listed at serial numbers 1 to 4 in the title above. Mahesh Chand is one of the accused in a case registered by the police under Ss.394 and 397,I.P.C. He was arrested in this case on Sept. 27, 1983. Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh were arrested in three separate cases under S.302, I.P.C. on April 17, Aug. 13 and Sept. 7, 1983 respectively. After the rejection of his application for bail by the Sessions Judge, Mahesh Chand applied to this Court for release on bail on grounds, inter alia, that the Magistrate concerned remanded him to custody under S.167, Cr. P.C. in contravention of the mandatory provisions of that section inasmuch as he had not been produced before the Magistrate for such remand, and that subsequently, the Magistrate added to the said illegality by extending his custody without there being any application made before him for such extension and without recording any reasons for the extended remand.
(3.)Soveran Singh and Srichand also made similar applications under S.439, Cr.P.C. before this Court pleading that their detention in custody during certain periods of time, prior to the making of the said applications, was unauthorised and illegal, and praying that therefore they are entitled to be released on bail on that ground alone. They added in this context that any subsequent order of remand, even if validly made in compliance with the provisions of S.167, 209 or 309, Cr.P.C., as the case may be, will not cure the earlier illegal detention and that their right to be released on bail springing from such illegal detention is not destroyed or taken away by the orders, subsequently made in compliance with the relevant provisions of law, authorising their detention in custody.
(2.)Mahesh Chand, Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh are the petitioners, respectively, in the applications listed at serial numbers 1 to 4 in the title above. Mahesh Chand is one of the accused in a case registered by the police under Ss.394 and 397,I.P.C. He was arrested in this case on Sept. 27, 1983. Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh were arrested in three separate cases under S.302, I.P.C. on April 17, Aug. 13 and Sept. 7, 1983 respectively. After the rejection of his application for bail by the Sessions Judge, Mahesh Chand applied to this Court for release on bail on grounds, inter alia, that the Magistrate concerned remanded him to custody under S.167, Cr. P.C. in contravention of the mandatory provisions of that section inasmuch as he had not been produced before the Magistrate for such remand, and that subsequently, the Magistrate added to the said illegality by extending his custody without there being any application made before him for such extension and without recording any reasons for the extended remand.
(3.)Soveran Singh and Srichand also made similar applications under S.439, Cr.P.C. before this Court pleading that their detention in custody during certain periods of time, prior to the making of the said applications, was unauthorised and illegal, and praying that therefore they are entitled to be released on bail on that ground alone. They added in this context that any subsequent order of remand, even if validly made in compliance with the provisions of S.167, 209 or 309, Cr.P.C., as the case may be, will not cure the earlier illegal detention and that their right to be released on bail springing from such illegal detention is not destroyed or taken away by the orders, subsequently made in compliance with the relevant provisions of law, authorising their detention in custody.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.