Chandrachud, J. - (1.) This a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asking for the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, Sandip Kumar Dey, challenges by this petition the legality of various orders under which he was remanded to jail custody from time to time.
(2.) It appears from the First Information Report lodged by the Inspector, Golmuri Circle, Jamshedpur, that on the afternoon of June 5, 1971 a large police party raided a house from which ammunition, firearms and other weapons were recovered. The petitioner and another person called Narain Das were arrested on the spot and were produced on the very next day before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur, who remanded them to jail custody from time to time. The petitioner was transferred to Gaya jail on August 5, 1971, but the orders of remand continued to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur without the production of the petitioner before him. It is urged that these remand orders are illegal as they were passed behind the back of the petitioner and in spite of the fact that he was willing and available for being produced before the Magistrate.
(3.) Mr. Garg who appears on behalf of the petitioner has raised several interesting questions arising out of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the jurisdiction of a court to remand an accused person to custody but all of these points ultimately converge on the issue whether an order of remand can be passed without the physical production of the accused before the court. This issue is no longer res integra. In Raj Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 147 this court held by a majority of five to two that even if it be desirable for the Magistrates to have the prisoner produced before them when the prisoners are remitted to further custody, an order of remand made without producing the accused in court is not invalid as it may on occasions be necessary to order remand in the absence of an accused. This decision was followed in Gouri Shankar v. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCR 129 and in M. Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 850.;