J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the various orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi after 29.6.95 and specially against the order dated 12.2.96 and it has been prayed that the entire proceedings after 29.6.95 be quashed as null and void and the applicant in revision be enlarged on bail pending trial of case crime No. 82 of 1995 under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE applicant in revision is the husband of the deceased. The learned counsel for the applicant in revision, Sri D. S. Mishra contended before me that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed gross illegality in not passing any valid order remanding the applicant in revision to jail custody and, therefore, the detention of the applicant in revision is illegal and on account of that, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a number of decisions. The lower court record has also been summoned, which I have perused. In order to appreciate the contentions of the applicant's counsel, some relevant facts may be put in brief. On 13.4.95 a First Information Report was lodged at police station Sigra, District Varanasi and on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered, wherein the applicant in revision is the main accused. The police investigated the said case and submitted charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 29.6.1995. Copies were furnished to the accused persons under Section 207, Cr. P.C. on 13.7.1995. Excepting the applicant in revision, other accused persons were released on bail. Since 13.7.1995 the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session on account of the absence of one or the other accused, who are on ball. The last date fixed was 10.6.1996. On every date fixed by the Court, the applicant in revision has been produced before the Magistrate in custody and was sent to jail where he is confined in judicial custody.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant in revision argued that during the committal proceedings, on no date any order remanding the accused to custody has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the order-sheet and in the absence of any such order of remand, the custody of the applicant is illegal, as a consequence of which he is entitled to be released on bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently argued that the orders which are being challenged in this revision, were all interlocutory orders. Therefore, revision is barred on account of the bar created by Section 397 (2), Cr. P.C. He further argued that proper and legal course for the applicant would have been to approach this Court by filing a Habeas Corpus petition or moving an application for bail.;