SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Kar) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, BUDIHAL R.B., JJ.
Gaurav Goel - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Karnataka - Respondents
Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 83/2015
Decided on : 23-06-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sri M.T. Nanaiah, Sri M. Vinaya Keerthy
Sri D. Nagaraj, Addl. Government Advocate

Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Sections 267, 269 & Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act (32 of 1955), Sections 3, 6: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & Budihal R. B, JJ] Issue of production warrant - Held, It can be issued only for purpose of securing appearance of person, already detained in custody. Pendency of same neither can be equated to order of remand, nor can be construed to be authorisation for detaining person beyond period. Detention of detenue subsequent to release order merely on ground of pendency of production warrant would be illegal.

       PRISONERS (ATTENDANCE IN COURTS) ACT [32/1955] - Sections 3, 6: [Mohan Shantanagoudar & Budihal R. B, JJ] Issue of production warrant - Held, It can be issued only for purpose of securing appearance of person, already detained in custody. Pendency of same neither can be equated to order of remand, nor can be construed to be authorisation for detaining person beyond period. Detention of detenue subsequent to release order merely on ground of pendency of production warrant would be illegal.

Order

Petitioner is son of the detenue viz., Vinod Goel. Crime No.10/2015 came to registered against the detenue by the Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru on certain allegations; consequently, remand order dated 12.6.2015 was passed by the Court of XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH24) {‘Special Court’ for short}; the detenue was detained pursuant to such order; the detenue filed an application before the Special Court seeking an order of bail; the Special Court enlarged the detenue on bail by the order dated 19.6.2015 and issued a release order which has been duly served on the Central Prison authorities, Bengaluru wherein the detenue – Vinod Goel is imprisoned.

In the meanwhile, the learned JMFC, Tiptur issued body warrant (Production Warrant) in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009 seeking production of the detenue from custody {In CC No.309/2009, the detenue is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) & 21(16) of MMRD Act and in CC No.63/2009, the detenue is facing trial for the offences under Sections 3A & 3B of the Forest Act}. After issuing the body warrant (Production Warrant), the learned JMFC posted the aforementioned Criminal Cases on 17.7.2015. Thus, according to the Prison Authorities, the detenue will be produced before the JMFC Court, Tiptur in the aforementioned two criminal cases on 17.7.2015 by taking him from Central Prison, Bangalore; till then the detenue will be kept in custody. The offences alleged against the detenue in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009 are bailable. All the aforementioned facts are not in dispute.

Despite the order of bail granted in Crime No.10/2015 (in which the detenue is arrested) by the Special Court, the Prison Authorities are not releasing the detenue only on the ground that the body warrant is issued by the JMFC Court, Tiptur in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009 and the same is pending. A representation is made on 20.6.2015 by the petitioner (detenue’s son) to the respondents requesting them to honour the release order passed by the Special Court in Crime No.10/2015 and release the detenue immediately. Till this date, the said representation is not considered and consequently the detenue is not released. Hence this Petition is filed praying for writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the detenue forthwith by honouring the order of bail passed by the Special Court in Crime No.10/2015.

2. Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the detenue cannot be detained in custody after 19.6.2015, on which date the order of bail/release order is granted in favour of the detenue in Crime No.10/2015 by the Special Court; the body warrant issued by the JMFC Court, Tiptur in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009 is only for production of the detenue if detained in custody legally, for appearance before the said Court; the body warrant so issued cannot be equated to the warrant of arrest and thus according to him, the detention of the detenue citing the reason of issuance of the body warrant by the JMFC Court, Tiptur in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009 clearly violates the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it contravenes the order of bail granted by the Special Court in Crime No.10/2015.

We have also heard Sri Nagaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State in the matter.

3. Before proceeding further, at the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that the detenue was arrested in connection with Crime No.10/2015 registered by Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta. Undisputedly, he is granted the order of bail by the jurisdictional Court on 19.6.2015. The conditions of bail order are satisfied and hence the release order is issued by the Court to the Prison authorities, directing the authorities to release the detenue in Crime No.10/2015.

4. Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.PC’









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top