- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. In the present case the applicant Ram Akbal Pandey, has applied for bail in Crime No. 150 of 1991 under Sections 498-A/304-B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhiti, district Faizabad. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the custody of the applicant is illegal as compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 of the Constitution of India has not been made in the present case. According to the learned counsel at the time of the arrest of the applicant the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of law and as such the arrest of the applicant has become illegal.
(2.) ON the other hand the learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the arrest of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal or in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it also does not violate the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the applicant was told the grounds of his arrest at the time when the arrest was made. According to him it is not necessary that every detail of the offence disclosed to the applicant at the time of his arrest should have been mentioned in the General Diary of arrest but a mere mention in the General Diary that the grounds of arrest have been disclosed to the applicant is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20 of the Constitutian of India. According to him the grounds of arrest even if they were not told at the beginning could have been told to him later on because it is not the requirement of any provision of law that the grounds should be told immediately at the time of the arrest of the person. He has further argued that the bail is not the remedy in such a case and the applicant can be set at liberty only a writ petition of habeas corpus. A copy of the General Diary has been filed as Annexure-2 to the bail application. In the last sentence of the General Diary it is mentioned that accused Ram Akbal Pandey met him and he was told the reasons of his arrest and then he was taken into custody. These words, according to the learned counsel for the applicant do not indicate that the details of the arrest of the applicant were told to him at the time of the arrest. According to the learned counsel for the State only this much is sufficient and nothing more is required to be told to the applicant at the time of the arrest Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of Hazart Lal v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 LLJ 230. That was also a case in which detailed grounds of arrest had not been told to the petitioner. In that case the sentence written in the General Diary was "abhiyukt ko giraftari ka Karan wa, Jamanat ka adhikar batakar hirasat me liya gaya. " Interpreting these words and after referring to certain case law on this point the Bench observed that the conten tion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's detention was illegal and unconstitutional is perfectly correct and the contention of the learned counsel for the State to the contrary was not acceptable. In that case the Additional Government Advocate also filed on behalf of the State an additional counter-affidavit stating that it could not be held that the grounds were not disclosed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in conformity with, the requirement of the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 50 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held in that case that a mere mention in the General Diary that reasons for arrest were told to the petitioner at the time of his arrest was not the sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be held, on the facts of the present case, that the applicant was told the grounds of his arrest as required under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The other ground of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the bail is not the remedy in such cases where the detention is illegal. According to him this plea can only be raised in a habeas corpus writ petition. For this proposition of law he has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1985 Cr LJ 301. In that case there was an illegality in the order of remand by which the applicant was sent to jail. That was a case of non-bailable offence. It was held in that case that the new Code does not contain any provision entitling an accused to be released on bail merely on the ground and without more, that his detention is illegal. In order to obtain his release on bail, the accused must show that his case is either covered by para (a) of Section 167 (2), or that he is entitled to it under the provisions of Chapter 33 of the new Code. It was further held that the bail is no remedy and has never been conceived or intended in law to be a remedy for illegal detention. It was further observed that the aggrieved party may have his legal remedy including the remedy of habeas corpus against such illegal detention, but illegal detention, by itself and taken alone, is no ground for bail and has not been recognised as such by the new Code.
(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the bail can be granted in cases of illegal detention also. He has placed reliance on the case of Sayeed Ahmad v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 541. That was, as a matter of fact, third application for bail which was moved on behalf of the accused. In that case there was a defect in the order of remand to jail. In that case it was contended that at no stage of the case any legal warrant was issued authorising the detention of applicant in jail and, consequently, the applicant was entitled to bail. After dealing with the facts of that case the Court granted bail and directed the lower court to release the applicant on bail. Therefore this case is an authority for the present case that the High Court has power to grant bail in a case where there is illegal detention. In the case of Sheo Baran Singh v. State of U. P. , 1982 Luck LJ 128, the facts were that there was no direction in the committal order for keeping the accused in custody. After perusing the facts of the case the Court directed the accused to be released on bail on the application for bail which was moved by the accused. The case relied upon by a learned Additional Government Advocate cannot be relied upon in face of authorities of this court.;