Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, is against the dismissal by the High Court of Patna of the Writ Petition and an application under Section d561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a writ of habeas corpus and an order of a like nature, filed by the appellant, Both of them were heard together as they contained common allegations and both were dismissed by a common judgment.

2. In the two aforesaid proceedings, the case of the appellant was that he was arrested on February 18, 1968, that since then he had been detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention and also without having been produced before a Magistrate either within 24 hours after his detention as required under the Code, or even thereafter. On February 21, 1968, he was removed to Darbhanga jail where he was threatened that he would be falsely involved in several cases of dacoity unless he made certain incriminating statements which the police wanted him to make. He made two applications from jail one of February 25, 1968, and the other on February 28, 1968 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The first was not received at all by the Magistrate, while the second was received but after a long time and was rejected. He also alleged that thereafter he made tow further applications, one dated March 22, 1968 and the other dated March 27, 1968 wherein he applied for directions to the police to furnish him with particulars of offences charged against him and for bail but that be received no order on either of them. In these allegations, he claimed release forthwith from detention and the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State before the High Court, it was stated that one Bilat Sahni and one Baleshwar Paswan made confessions before the Magistrate at Samastipur on 23 rd and 24th January, 1968 confessing their own guilt and implicating the appellant and certain other persons in about eight dacoity cases, all having been committed in that locality. Thereupon, the appellant was arrested on February 17, 1968. He was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Samastipur on February 18, 1968, but was remanded to police custody by the said Magistrate for four days on an application by the police therefor. On February, 21, 1968, the appellant was once again produced before the same magistrate and on an application by the police he was remanded to jail custody. The affidavit alleged that the appellant was involved in as many as nine dacoity cases wherein remand orders had been passed from time to time and that that was how he had, since February 21, 1968, been detained as an undertrial prisoner. On April 19, 1968, an identification parade was held in connection with one of the said nine cases whereat the relevant complainant identified the appellant. The case of the State was that the appellant was one of the three leaders engaged with certain hardened criminals in the aforesaid several decoity cases, that it was not true that he was unaware of the case against him or that he was not produced before the magistrate or that he was kept in prison without proper remand orders having been passed by the Magistrate.

4. Five contentions were raised before the High Court, viz., (I) that the appellant was never produced before any magistrate with 24 hours after his arrest or even thereafter; hence his detention was in breach of Article 22 of the Constitution, (ii) that although the order-sheet. In respect of Laheriasarai Police Station Case No. 1 of 1968, records that the appellant had been produced before the Magistrate on several days set out therein, that order sheet had been falsely made; (iii) that the magistrate had no power to detain the appellant in jail in excess of 15 days in all, (iv) that even if he had the power to remand him in excess of 15 days in all, the condition for passing such orders was not satisfied, factually ever passed. None of these contentions was ac