S.K. Phaujdar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Bal Mukund Jaiswal, has invoked our writ jurisdiction for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention in custody in District Jail, Varanasi.
(2.) The petitioner stands charged for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Special Trial Case No, 273 of 1993. He was arrested without any warrant and, according to him, without being told the reason or basis of his arrest and was produced before a Magistrate on 12.2.1993 who had lodged him in custody at the District Jail Varanasi. It is further case of the petitioner that since then he is in custody and has been produced before the court on number of occasions and there was no proper order of remand for his detention in custody. It is the case of the petitioner that his continued detention is illegal, unconstitutional and against the due process of law. It was stated that in sending him to inter,mediate custody the concerned Additional Sessions Judge had not applied his mind and had acted casually, mechanically and arbitrarily. He prays for quashing of the order of his detention and for his immediate release from custody.
(3.) Out of the two respondents, namely, the Superintendent District Jail, Varanasi and the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Home Secretary, only the former came up to file a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it was stated that the statements in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the writ petition were not admitted. The jail authorities received the custody warrant for the petitioner from the Varanasi Court on 27.11.1992 and, thereafter, remand warrants were received from time to time from a competent court for his detention in jail. In this counter affidavit the allegations in para,graphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the writ petition were also not accepted. It was stated that a custody warrant under Section 309 Cr.P.C. was received at the jail from the Varanasi Court on 24.2.1993 and from time to time thereafter. The latest remand order, according to this affidavit, was recorded on 19.3.1994 directing production of the petitioner on 1.4.1994. it was denied that there was no signature on the remand order dated 24.2.1994. The allegations in para,graphs 18 to 22 of the writ petition were also denied and there was no comment regarding the averments in paragraph 23 of the writ petition. This affidavit is silent on the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition and in these two paragraphs, the petitioner has stated that he was arrested in contravention of the provisions of Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and he also stated that at the time of or prior to or after arrest the reasons or the grounds or the details thereof were not indicated to the petitioner or to his family members inspite of repeated querries. He was arrested without warrant. It was contended before us by the learned A.G.A. that the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition were matters not within the knowledge of the jail authorities and so the counter affidavit by the jail authority could not speak anything on these paragraphs. This argument may not be accepted as, the State of U.P. was very much a party in this proceeding and despite chances being given to it, the State has not preferred to file any counter affidavit to deny the factual assertions made by the petitioner in his writ petition. We must, therefore, go by the normal law of pleadings to hold that a fact asserted by the petitioner in his writ petition and not denied by the respondent must be accepted as an admitted fact. We must, therefore, for our further discussions, hold that the petitioner was not told the reasons of his arrest before or after or at the time of his arrest inspite of repeated querries by him and his family members and that the arrest was made without warrant, are admitted facts.;