1923 (10) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's detention and remand under Sections 400 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 61, 167, and 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Consideration of bail application and the principles governing the grant of bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Detention and Remand:
The petitioner was arrested on August 5, 1923, and was alleged to be involved in several criminal activities, including dacoities and murders. The petitioner's house was searched, but nothing suspicious was found. The Police Magistrate at Sealdah remanded the petitioner based on a letter from the Detective Department, which mentioned the involvement of the petitioner in various crimes and a confession implicating him. However, the court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for nearly two months without concrete facts being presented before a Magistrate in conformity with the law.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
- Section 61: It mandates that no police officer shall detain a person arrested without a warrant for more than 24 hours without a special order from a Magistrate. The court noted that there was no clear information on whether there was strict compliance with Section 61 between August 5 and August 16.
- Section 167: This section allows a Magistrate to authorize detention in police custody for up to 15 days. The court emphasized that the power of remand under Section 167 is for detaining prisoners while the police conduct an investigation.
- Section 344: This section authorizes a remand after a Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case. The court found that the proceedings were not regular, as the Police Magistrate at Sealdah had not properly taken cognizance of the case under Section 190(b) on August 20, 1923, because there was no police report that stated the facts constituting the offense.

3. Consideration of Bail Application:
The court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and is meant to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The court applied the following considerations:
- Nature of the Accusation: The petitioner was accused of serious crimes under Sections 400 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Nature of the Evidence: The evidence included a confession recorded weeks before the petitioner's arrest, which was not sufficient to justify continued detention.
- Severity of Punishment: The offenses under Sections 400 and 401 carry severe punishments, including transportation for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The court highlighted that the discretionary power to grant bail is judicial and governed by established principles. The court found that the facts presented did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the offenses alleged. Consequently, the court directed the release of the petitioner on bail, fixing the amount at Rs. 6,000 with three sureties for Rs. 2,000 each.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the procedural requirements under Sections 61, 167, and 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not strictly followed, and the evidence presented did not justify the continued detention of the petitioner. Therefore, the court granted bail to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with the legal principles governing the grant of bail.