KRISHNA KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 17 -1 -2001 and other orders of the Court.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist contended that in view of the illegal cus ­tody of the revisionist, he is entitled for being released on bail. It is shown that on 15 -9 -2000 remand order was passed under Section 309 Cr. P.C. by the Court to the Superintendent, Orai to keep the accused in his custody and .to produce him in the Court on the date fixed. It is contended that after the said order the accused was not kept in the cus ­tody at Orai jail, rather he was sent to Lucknow jail and thereafter he was sent and kept in Sitapur jail. It is contended that the said detention was illegal as it was without any authority of the Court. It is contended that after 15 -9 -2000 the revisionist was not brought before the Court and there was no valid order for remand of the accused in judicial custody.
(3.) MY attention was drawn towards the order dated 17 -1 -2001 itself by the learned counsel for the revisionist in which it has been very clearly mentioned that the administrative authorities including the jail authorities have failed to procure the attendance of the accused before the Court so as to enable it to frame charges against the accused. The order also shows that letters were sent to the different authorities and even this much was stated in the letters that if the accused Rudrapal Singh is not produced before the Court, it shall be contempt of Courts, but still the accused was not produced before the Court. When the revisionist -accused was not being produced before the Court in spite of the efforts of the Court itself, it is very clear that there could not be any remand order passed by the concerned Court to keep the accused in judicial cus ­tody and unless any such order is passed by the Court concerned, the custody of the accused has become illegal after 15 -9 -2000. Even show -cause notices were is ­sued against the concerned authorities for contempt of Courts proceedings.;