M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) CAN a Magistrate refuse, on the ground of want of facilities, to consider a plea of an accused for bail under section 167 Cr. P. C or for remand to judicial custody, whenapproached at his residence bayond court hours or on a holiday but within twenty four hours of the arrest and if so he refuses, does it not amount to a violation of the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed in arts. 21 and 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and of the provisions of sections 56,57 Cr. P. C. ? Can an oral application for bail be refused as not maintainable on the ground that the application is not in writing ? These are the two main important questions that arise in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are the following;- The first petitioner. Dr. P. C. Kakar, is a Doctor practising in hyderabad. According to the allegations in the writ petition he passed M. S. and obtained his Post-Graduate Degree from u. S. A. He is running a hospital under the name and style of rai Bahadur dwarakanath Hospital at D. No. 1-127, saroornagar, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner is said to be his wife and she is also said to be a Doctor in Indian medicine assisting the 1st petitioner; there have been some civil disputes between the 1st petitioner s first wife relating to the property in which she has alleged that the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner illegally as his second wife. There are also certain civil disputes between the 1st petitioner on the one hand and his father and brother on the other

( 3 ) THE respondents 1 to 5 in this writ petition are respectively (1) The director General of Police (2) The superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy district (3) The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District (4) The station House Officer, Saroornagar Police station; and (5) The Sub Inspector of police, Saroornagar police station.

( 4 ) THE police came into the picture some time after 10-1-1986 when it is alleged that the 1st petitioner s brother and father tried to tresspass into the 1st petitioner s premises and remove certain articles. It is stated that when the 2nd petitioner reported the matter to the 5th respondent he refused to act, on the ground that the dispute was a civil dispute. The 2nd petitioner contacted the 2nd respondent and under the directions of the latter, the 5th respondent came to the spot and took certain unsocial elements into custody It is stated that when the 5th respondent asked the petitioners to come to the police station they did not oblige the 5th respondent on the ground that they had work in their clinic. On that, it is stated that the 5th respondent got enraged, abused the petitioners and asked the ASL one Sardar baig to put the 1st petitioner in the police look up and that accordingly the 1st petitioner was detained in the police station for the whole night. The said incident is said to have been witnessed by Dr Siva Karan Singh and Mr. Manik rao. The 1st petitioner was released on the next day being threatened with dire consequences if he were to make any complaint against the 5th respondent.

( 5 ) IT is the petitioners case that the 1st petitioner made a complaint to the 2nd respondent in writing against the high handed behaviour of the 5th respondent. It is his case that the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and that the 3rd respondent used to send police officers at odd timings to the petitioners clinic and they used to misbehave or abuse the other doctors. On 5-9-1985 it is stated that the 4th respondent and other constables came io the petitioners hospital, abused the 2nd petitioner during the absence of the 1st petitioner and threatened that in case the 1st petitioner was not sent to the police station, the 2nd petitioner would be nested. Regarding this incident the petitioners made a further representation to the 2nd respondent and for taking appropriate action against th e 5th respondent The 2nd respondent is said to have dir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document