Debiprasad Sengupta, J - (1.) The petitioner was arrested on 3.7.2000 on the basis of a warrant of arrest issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Bihar, in connection with Patna Citty Chawk Police Station Case No.41/2000 dated 16.3.2000 under section 420/406/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested by a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore on 4.7.2000, when prayer for bail was made on his behalf and the same was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Against such order of rejection the petitioner has come up before this Court with the prayer for bail. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, City, is not in conformity with section 78(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the arrest of the petitioner on the basis of such warrant is bad in law. It is his further submission that the warrant of arrest does not contain the substance of information together with the document, if any, as required under section 78(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Basu further submits that at the time of executing the warrant of arrest, police neither notified the substance thereof to the petitioner nor shown the copy of warrant to the petitioner and thereby, the mandatory provision of section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been complied with Mr. Basu in support of his contention relies on a judgment reported in 79 Cal WN 474. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that when a person is arrested in pursuance of a warrant of arrest outside the jurisdiction of the Court which has issued such warrant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the place where the arrest is a effected has under the second proviso to section 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subject to the provision of that section, jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail and grant bail to the person arrested. It was further held that where the provision of section 50 of the said Code have not been complied with (in the said case the person arrested not having been informed of the grounds of his arrest), the non- consideration of such non-conformance by the Court when considering the question of granting bail causes prejudice to the accused. It appears from the impugned order that the said provision of law as referred to above have not been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. Substance of information/accusation against the petitioner was not intimated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. When the petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, the substance of information against the person was not forwarded to the Court. In the absence of such particulars the learned Magistrate was not in a position to consider the materials which were collected by the police.
(2.) Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate for the State. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I find sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. Basu and accordingly I allow this application for bail and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, on condition; (a) that he shall appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Bihar, within two weeks from the date of his release. (b) that he shall report compliance of the order passed by this Court before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, within seven days of his appearance before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Bihar; (c) That during the period while the accused petitioner will be on bail, he will afford all facilities to the Investigating Officer to complete interrogation; (d) That while on bail he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer.
(3.) The application is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. ( Previous Hitlist Next ) ;