Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY CHAND
Versus.
SHEIKH MOHD. ABDULLAH, CHIEF minister, J and K
Decided on March 12, 1981
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 307 – Anticipatory bail – Order of bail - Offence of Murder – Court direct that against whom an FIR under S. 307 of the Penal Code is alleged to have been lodged shall present himself before Magistrate concerned on due date for his appearance shall not be taken into custody except in respect of an offence committed by him hereafter – In event it becomes imperative to arrest for any such alleged offence committed by him hereafter authorities concerned shall give intimation to this court of such arrest promptly - Court direct that the State shall file through an officer properly informed in that behalf an affidavit in this court within one week from today in regard to the allegations made by petitioners that heads of two of them were shaved off after they were taken into custody - If it be true that their heads were so shaved person responsible for passing order in that behalf shall disclose the authority under which he acted – Held, Petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of Order passed by this court on but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior – Court are quite amazed at this statement and could should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of petitioners for any other offences it was their bounden duty to apprise this court before taking these persons in custody especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed order of bail that any case or cases were investigation against any of petitioners - Regret that this elementary courtesy to this court was not shown – Court would like to reiterate that petitioners shall be treated as free citizens in spite of that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to order of bail passed by this court – Order Accordingly
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court clarified that individuals who have been granted anticipatory bail should not be taken into custody unless they commit a subsequent offence, and if arrest becomes necessary, the authorities must inform the court promptly (!) .
The court directed the State to file an affidavit within one week addressing allegations that two petitioners had their heads shaved after being taken into custody, and if true, the responsible authority must disclose under which authority this was done [1000289710002].
The court ordered the State to file an affidavit regarding allegations made against the police officer concerning a statement about the officer’s arms being longer than those of the court [1000289710002].
Petitioners, having been granted bail, are to be treated as free citizens and shall not be taken into custody or handcuffed unless they commit a subsequent offence [1000289710003].
The court expressed concern that the petitioners were subsequently arrested for other offences after being granted bail without informing the court, which was considered a breach of elementary courtesy and a violation of the bail order [1000289710004].
The court emphasized that the petitioners should be treated as free citizens despite any subsequent arrests that are contrary to the bail order [1000289710004].
The State was directed to produce data regarding the arrest of a specific petitioner for offences under the Penal Code at the next hearing [1000289710005].
The matter was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date, ensuring continued judicial oversight (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this document.
( 1 ) MR Kacker, who appears on behalf of the State of Jammu and kashmir, has made a statement before us that all the four persons namely, Uday Chand, Shiv Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Bansi Lal have already been released on bail inpursuance of the Order passed by this court on 2/03/1981. If that be so, there is no question of the petitioners being in custody any longer. We direct that Ashok kumar against whom an FIR under S. 307 of the Penal Code is alleged to have been lodged, shall present himself before the Magistrate concerned on the due date for his appearance viz. 16/03/1981. Until 16/03/1981, Ashok Kumar shall not be taken into custody except in respect of an offence committed by him hereafter. In theevent it becomes imperative to arrest Ashok Kumar for any such alleged offence committed by him hereafter, the authorities concerned shall give intimation to this court of such arrest promptly.
( 2 ) WE direct that the State shall file, through an officer properly informed in that behalf, an affidavit in this court within one week from today in regard to the allegations made by the petitioners that the heads of two of them were shaved off after they were taken into custody. If it be true that their heads were so shaved, the person responsible for passing the order in that behalf shall disclose the authority under which he acted.
( 3 ) WE further direct that the S. S. P. , Jammu, shall file an affidavit in this court within one week from today in regard to the allegations made against him in paragraph 9 of the petition to the effect that he said that "his arms were longer than those of the Supreme court"
( 4 ) THE petitioners being free citizens will be at liberty to leave the court room and it is needless to add that they shall not be taken in custody or be handcuffed.
( 5 ) MR Kacker stated before us that the petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of the Order passed by this court on 2/03/1981 but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to 2/03/1981. We are quite amazed at this statement and we should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of the petitioners for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this court before taking these persons in custody, especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed the order of bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the petitioners. We regret that this elementary courtesy to this court was not shown. We would like to reiterate that the petitioners shall be treated as free citizens in spite of the fact that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this court.
( 6 ) WE direct the State of Jammu and Kashmir to produce before us at the next hearing the necessary data regarding the arrest of Ashok kumar for offences under the Penal Code.
( 7 ) THE matter be listed for hearing on 24/03/1981.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
