IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. Srishananda, J.
M.Shashidhara @ Shashi - Son Of Muniraju - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka By Jayanagara Police Station Rep. By State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1396 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Cr.PC - Bail - Section 267 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 439 and 267 of Cr.P.C., and the contents of Form Nos.36 & 37, and concluded that a person can be in custody at any given point of time only in one case. The court emphasized that an order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. does not authorize the custody of the accused in subsequent cases. The court also highlighted the need for a suitable mechanism to track accused persons in custody and the circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, Karnataka State, to secure the rights of under trial prisoners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested in respect of Crime No.87/2021 and were sent to judicial custody. Subsequently, a case was registered against them in Crime No.20/2021, and they were granted custody to Jayanagar Police for investigation. Despite being granted bail in Crime No. 87/2021, the petitioners were not released due to a body warrant issued in Crime No.20/2021. The petitioners approached the District Judge for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed, leading them to file a petition before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the body warrant issued in Crime No.20/2021 did not authorize the Jail Authorities to detain the petitioners in custody, especially after they had been granted bail in Crime No.87/2021. The court also highlighted the need for a suitable mechanism to track accused persons in custody and the circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, Karnataka State, to secure the rights of under trial prisoners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. does not authorize the custody of the accused in subsequent cases. The court emphasized the need for a suitable mechanism to track accused persons in custody and the circulars issued by the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, Karnataka State, to secure the rights of under trial prisoners.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of as the petitioners were already released by the Jail Authorities. The court appreciated the prompt efforts made by the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, Karnataka State, and the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, in issuing the circulars to secure the rights of under trial prisoners.
ORDER :
The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC., with the following prayer:
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. The petitioners were enlarged on bail by order dated 18.01.2022 in Crime No.87/2021. However, the petitioners were not released by the jail authorities though they had the benefit of grant of bail in Crime No. 87/2021 purportedly on the ground that there is a body warrant issued by the learned Magistrate in respect of Crime No.20/2021.
4. Therefore, the petitioners approached learned District Judge for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Petition No.66/2022. Learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru after hearing the Public Prosecutor, on merits dismissed the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the fact that they have been enlarged on bail in Crime No. 87/2021 by order dated 18.01.2022 and petitioners are continued in custody on the basis of the body warrant issued in Crime No. 20/2021.
6. The same is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader stating that the petitioners are known criminals.
7. Apart from the merits of the matter, while hearing the parties, this Court raised a technical point to be satisfied on behalf of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners were not at all arrested and sent to judicial custody in respect of Crime No. 20/2021 as such, how a bail petition is maintainable under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In reply to the same learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that though they are not arrested, the Jail Authorities are not releasing the petitioners on the ground that there is a body warrant issued in Crime No. 20/2021.
8. In order to appreciate the said aspect of the matter, it is necessary for this Court to cull out the provisions of Sections 439 and 267 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct –
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the o
Point of Law : Under subsection (4) of Section 20 TADA read with Section 167 of the Code and the Designated Court shall release him on bail, if the accused seeks to be so released and furnishes the r....
An accused who is already in custody cannot seek anticipatory bail; they must apply for regular bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C.
Judicial custody requires extension by the Magistrate, without which detention is not automatically illegal; compliance with statutory provisions is necessary for lawful detention.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
The impairment of subjective satisfaction and non-application of mind in the grounds of the impugned preventive detention orders led to the dislodgement of the orders, emphasizing the importance of u....
Sec. 437 of Code makes a provision for persons who have been arrested in a non-bailable offence and have been produced before a Magistrate.
Non-communication of detention orders is an irregularity but does not render the detention illegal if the original order complies with legal requirements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the custody and remand of the petitioner were found to be legal and in compliance with the law, including the Arnesh Kumar case guidelines and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.