PALOK BASU, J. - (1.) In all the aforesaid four cases one of the points argued was that at the time of arrest of the petitioner in each case the ground of arrest and full particulars regarding it were not disclosed and, therefore, Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India stood violated. The other question in all the four cases was whether the petitioner was detained for a period more than necessary and in some beyond 24 hours and, therefore, Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India was violated. On these two grounds it was argued that the continued detention of the petitioner in each case was illegal. Some questions of fact were raised relating to each case which shall be dealt with at the relevant place. It may be noted here that in all the cases counter affidavits by the relevant opposite parties have been filed to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being finally disposed at the admission stage. Sri R. P. Singh, Sri S. V. Goswami, Sri Prem Prakash Yadav and Sri D. S. Misra have been heard on behalf' of the petitioners in each case respectively while Sri Shivaji Misra has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, all of whom have been heard at sufficient length.
(2.) The facts in each case as pleaded by the respective sides are noted below : (1) Sher Bahadur Singh's petition. Petitioner's case State's case (i) On 23-4-91 at 10-30 a.m. Sher Bahadur Singh was arrested from the office of the C.M.O. Sultanpur by the Sub Inspector who told him that the petitioner is in custody and took him to Allahabad on 23-4-1992 and lodged him at the police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad. (i) Case Crime No. 402 / 92 u / S. 364, IPC State v. Sanjay Singh and other was registered at P.S. Colonelganj. The house of the petitioner was searched in Faizabad on 22-4-1992 but he was not traceable. The petitioner was arrested in Mohalla Katra Allahabad at 6-10 p.m. on 27-4-1992 after collecting materials against him showing his participation in murdering the abducted deceased. (ii) C.M.O. wrote a letter to S.P. and another to District Magistrate, Sultanpur on 23-4-1992. (ii) Denied. (iii) Manish, petitioner's son, sent three telegrams to authorities on 23-4-1992. (iii) Telegrams and applications were not genuine and indicate peshbandi. (iv) Petitioner not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Informant (Ravindra Pratap) of a case relating to the alleged murder of Bhupendra Kumar Singh was seen at the police station. (iv) After the arrest of the petitioner he was forwarded to the court of A.C.J.M., Allahabad for remand on 28-4-1992 but as the petitioner reached the court at 4-30p.m. by which time Magistrate had retired. therefore,. he was remanded to judicial custody on 29-4-1992. (v) Affidavit in this case was sworn on 28-4-1992 and the affidavit was filed in the afternoon which was taken up on 29-4-1992. (v) The entries of arrest and challan have not been produced but a report of the Court Moharrir allegedly dated 8-5-1992 produced as Annexure-SCA 2. (2) Mahendra Bhushan's petition Petitioner's case State's case (i) Petitioner No. 2 Ashwini Kumar was arrested on 27-4-1992 at 6 p.m. and taken to P.S. Colonelganj, Allahabad. (i) Petitioner No. 2 arrested on 30-4-1992 at 10 p.m. in case Crime No 556 / 92 under S.460/411, IPC and from his possession Rs. 215.00 were recovered which was looted prAperty. (ii) Telegram sent by father Mahendra Bhushan regarding his son's arrest on 28-4 l992 and again on 29-4-1992 addressed to the authorities. (ii) Telegrams were by way of Peshbandi (iii) The accused was not shown the reasons of his arrest and was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. (iii)The accused was produced within 24 hours i.e., on 1-5-1992 before the Magistrate concerned who has remanded him to judicial custody and he is in jail. (3) Israr Ahmad's petition Petitioner's case State's case (1)On 8/9-4-1992 the petitioner was arrested by the S.H.O. Dhoomanganj Allahabad. (1) Petitioner not arrested on 8/9-4-1992 (2) On 9-4-92 telegram was sent to the authorities complaining about the arrest. (2) Telegram was sent by Peshbandi. (3) On 16-4-1992 notice of the present Habeas Corpus petition given to the Standing Counsel and the petition was filed in the Registry of this Court. (3)Moving of the petition admitted but that was also moved on legal advice by way peshbandi. (4) Govt. Advocate's office in the High Court Building sent a radiogram message to S. S. P. about filing of Habeas Corpus petition which was collected at 5 p.m. by Pairokar of the police station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad. (4) Petitioner was actually arrested by P.S. Attarsuiya, Allahabad on 16-4-1992 at 7-30 p.m. u/S. 395/412, IPC along with dacoity property and u/ S. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for possessing illicit arms in Crime No. 171/ 92 who was produced on 17-4-1992 before the Magistrate and judicial remand obtained. Hence no violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India or S. 50, Cr. P.C. (4) Zakir alias Chachu's petition Petitioner's case State's case (i) Petitioner arrested on 24-1-1992 from his residence and had committed no offence. Petitioner was not told the grounds or particulars of his arrest. (i) The petitioner was arrested at the spot when he fired at the police party and the country-made pistol was recovered alongwith cartridges. Smell of gun powder coming from the barrel. Case was registered u/ S. 307, IPC. 7 (sic) Criminal Law (AA) Amendment Act and S.25(a) Arms Act at P.S. Kotwali Bareilly. Hence no violation of Art. 22 of the Constitution or 50, Cr. P.C. (ii) The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on 25-1-92 who granted police remand. (iii) On 30-1-1992 judicial remand was granted
(3.) From the statement of the cases contained above the fact is apparent. The petitioners in each case have already been remanded to judicial custody when they were produced before the Magistrate concerned. The question posed was that since presently there is a valid order remanding them to judicial custody, even if there was a prior jnfringement either of Art. 22(1) or 22(2) of the Constitution or S. 50 of the Cr. P.C., the said illegality stood cured and in any case has become irrelevant.;