RAJU PANDEY ALIAS RAJESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2002-2-13
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on February 19,2002

RAJU PANDEY ALIAS RAJESHWAR PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for commanding the respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner forthwith on the basis of release order dated 31-10-2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Doranda (A) P.S. Case No. 181 of 2001.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was an accused in the aforesaid case and he was granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 7767 of 2001 vide order dated 17-10-2001. Consequently the release order was sent to the Jail Authority i.e. Birsa Munda Jail, Ranchi, for his release from the jail and that release order was issued on 31-10-2001. The Superintendent of Jail, (respodnent No. 2) inspite of release order did not release the petitioner from the jail on the ground that the petitioner was required to be produced in another case being Sadar (Town) Daltonganj P.S. Case No. 177 of 2001. Then it appears that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj had issued a production warrant for production of this accused in the aforesaid case pending at Daltonganj. The reminders were also issued by that Court vide order dated 6-11-2001, 13-11-2001, 29-11-2001, 10-12-2001 but the petitioner was not produced there. The result was the case pending at Daltonganj used to be adjourned for his production, but till the date of filing of this writ i.e. till 19-12-2001 the petitioner had not been produced before the Daltonganj Court. Therefore, a prayer was made for a direction to the respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Jail (Birsa Munda Jail, Ranchi) for release the petitioner from jail in compliance of the order dated 31-10-2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi with an alternative prayer to pass an order to produce the petitioner forthwith in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in which it has been pleaded that the order dated 31-10-2001 was some what incorrect and therefore, it was corrected and release order was obtained in the jail on 2-11-2001, but it is admitted that the petitioner was detained in jail because there was a production warrant against him from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, and he had to be detained for his production. In paragraph 9, it has been stated that several letters were written by the Superintendent of jail, respondent No. 2, for providing escorts and such letters were written on 2-11-2001, 11-11-2001, 19-11-2001, 27-11-2001, 4-12-2001, 10-12-2001, 14-12-2001 23-12-2001, 29-12-2001, 3-1-2002, 7-1-2002, 11-1-2002 and 17-1-2002. But as the escorts party was not provided, so the petitioner could not be produced at Daltonganj Court and ultimately on 27-1-2002 the petitioner was sent to Daltonganj for his production before the Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.