- (1.) This Rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner JJ. on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendra Nath Chakravarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Crown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.
(2.) The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1923, by Inspector Hem Chandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that he is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched, but nothing suspicious or incriminating was found. The petitioner after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August, before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but the application was refused. On the 18th August, an application for bail was then made on his behalf to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, but he was informed that his proper remedy was by Habeas Corpus. On the 20th August, the petitioner was produced for the first time before the Police Magistrate at Sealdah, to whom he applied for bail. The Magistrate thereupon recorded the following order: Thirty-two accused sent up, charged under Sections 400 and 401 of the Penal Code. They are remanded to hajat till 4th September, 1923. Confession and search lists and diary should be produced to show that there is justification for detaining them in custody, if no chalan is submitted on that date.
(3.) This order was made on the basis of a letter which was addressed by the Inspector of Police, Detective Department, to the Police Magistrate, Sealdah, and was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C I.D. The letter was in the following terms:;