9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Production before Magistrate within 24 hours. 2. Information of grounds for arrest and detention. 3. Validity of custody warrant. 4. Legality of remand orders exceeding 15 days. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Production before Magistrate within 24 hours: The appellant argued that he was not produced before any magistrate within 24 hours after his arrest on February 18, 1968, as mandated by Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was contested by the State. The order-sheet of Laheriasarai Police Station Case No. 1/1968 indicated that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on February 18, 1968, and remanded to police custody until March 5, 1968. However, the High Court observed that subsequent remand orders dated March 5, 1968, March 20, 1968, and April 4, 1968, were falsely recorded as being made in the appellant's presence when he had actually refused to appear due to fear of being seen by witnesses. Despite the incorrect entries, the remand orders were lawfully passed in his absence, as per the precedent set in Rai Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi. 2. Information of grounds for arrest and detention: The appellant claimed he was never informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention, constituting a breach of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court found this allegation to be without foundation. The appellant's own applications from jail indicated that he was aware of the charges, as he mentioned being asked to admit to certain offences and refused to be produced for fear of being identified by witnesses. The Court concluded that the appellant was sufficiently informed of the reasons for his arrest. 3. Validity of custody warrant: The appellant contended that no valid custody warrant was issued by the Magistrate, rendering his detention in Darbhanga jail illegal. The custody warrant dated February 18, 1968, was allegedly cancelled when the appellant was remanded to police custody. However, the Court presumed that a fresh custody warrant must have been issued on February 21, 1968, when the appellant was ordered to jail custody. The Court found no reason to believe that the Magistrate or jail authorities would have neglected the issuance of a necessary custody warrant. 4. Legality of remand orders exceeding 15 days: The appellant argued that the remand orders were under Section 167, which limits custody to 15 days in total, and that Section 344 did not apply at that stage. The Court clarified that Section 167 applies during the initial stages of arrest and investigation, while Section 344 applies during inquiries and trials, allowing for remand to jail custody for periods not exceeding 15 days at a time. The Magistrate's orders were under Section 344, as the investigation had progressed sufficiently to raise suspicion and the need for further evidence. The Court held that the Magistrate had complied with the conditions of Section 344 and was competent to pass the remand orders. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant's contentions regarding the illegality of his arrest, detention, and remand orders were found to be without merit. The appeal was dismissed.
|
