IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
F. I. REBELLO and J. H. BHATIA, JJ.
SUSAN ABRAHAM
Versus
STATE OF MAHARAHTRA
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1951 of 2007 with Criminal Application No. 57 of 2008 with Criminal Application No. 108 of 2008
Decided On : January 20, 2010
When production warrant is issued under Section 267, the direction is to the officer-in-charge of the Jail to produce the accused before Court and not before the Investigating Officer. After production before Magistrate, he has to consider whether custody be or not be granted to police, which naturally requires application of judicial mind. That is the effective check or safeguard against misuse of the provision. This matter itself reveals that several requests by police to grant custody in number of cases were refused by J.M.F.C., Desaiganj.
After that, amendments were made in the Criminal Procedure Code in 2005 and 2008 and Sections 41-A, 41-B, 41-D, 50-A, 53-A, 54-A, 55-A, 60-A and proviso to Section 46 have been inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, practically, all the directions given by the Supreme Court are now part of the statute and therefore the police is bound to comply with the same. If those statutory provisions and the guidelines given by the Supreme Court are followed, there should not be any scope for any grievance. Therefore, on this count Court do not find it necessary to give any more directions.
Admittedly, the accused are already in judicial custody since 6.10.2007. Even before that, they were in judicial custody or police custody as per the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 167(2)(a) after following the procedure laid down in Section 267(1)(a). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Applications do not survive and stands disposed off accordingly.
( 1 ) THE petition is filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the transfer of the accused persons from judicial custody in a case of one police station to police custody of another police station by exercising the powers to issue production warrant under section 267, Cr. P. C. has been challenged.
( 2 ) TO state in brief, the petitioner's husband Vernon Stanislaus Gonsalves and his friend Shridhar Krishnan Shrinivasan, both residents of Mumbai, were arrested on 19. 8. 2007 by respondent No. 3 - Anti-Terrorism squad, Kalachowki, Mumbai in Crime No. 10/2007 under Sections 120-B and 121-A of the indian Penal Code and the provisions of the arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Indian explosives Act and Unlawful Activities prevention (Amendment) Act, 2004. On 20. 8. 2007, they were produced before the holiday Magistrate and were remanded to police custody till 22. 8. 2007. On 22. 8. 2007, the 2nd metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, extended their police custody remand till 3. 9. 2007. During the police custody, upto 3. 9. 2007 they were interrogated not only by the staff of respondent No. 3, but also by the police personnel of respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as well as by the police personnel from Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh and Intelligence Bureau. On expiry of police custody, on 3. 9. 2007, the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th court, Mazgaon, remanded them to judicial custody till 17. 9. 2007. However, the respondent No. 4 - officer-in-charge, Salekasa police Station from District Gondia,had obtained a production warrant under Section 267, cr. P. C. of both the accused in Crime No. 34/2005 registered by that Police Station from j. M. F. C. Amgaon, District Gondia. On 3. 9. 2007 itself, the Salekasa Police Station Officer -respondent No,4 sought custody of both the accused. In Crime No. 34/2005 on the basis of the production warrant. As per the order passed by the Addl. C. M. M. they were given in custody of Salekasa Police, On 4. 9. 2007, they were produced before the J. M. F. C. Amgaon and were remanded to police custody till 12. 9. 2007. On 12. 9. 2007, they were remanded to Magisterial custody till 26. 9. 2007 by J. M. F. C. Amgaon in crime No. 34/2005. However, on the same day, they were given in police custody of respondent no. 4 Salekasa Police till 17. 9. 2007 in Crime no. 174/2006 by J. M. F. C. Amgaon. On 17. 9. 2007, they were remanded to Magisterial custody in Crime No. 174/2006. However, immediately, respondent No. 4 Salekasa Police sought police custody in Crime No. 120/2006 which was granted till 21. 9. 2007 by J. M. FC. Amgaon. On 17. 9. 2007, they were not produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, mazgaon even though their very judicial custody in crime No. 10/2007 had come to an end on that day. However, on that day, respondent No. 5 officer in charge of Purada police Station, District Gadchiroli, produced a production warrant dated 14. 9. 2007 from j. M. F. C. Desaiganj, seeking custody of the said accused in Crime No. 51/2007 of that police station. The custody was granted by the 2nd metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon. The accused Vernon was required to be admitted in hospital on 21. 9. 2007. Both the accused were produced before the J. M. F. C, Amgaon, who remanded them to Magisterial custody in Crime no. 120/2006, but immediately respondent No. 5 purada Police took their custody in Crime no. 51/2007 of their police station. On 1. 10. 2007, they were produced before the j. M. F. C. Desaiganj, who refused further police custody and remanded them to Magisterial custody. However, respondent No. 6 - officer in charge Kurkheda Police Station, District gadchiroli sought custody of the said accused in Crime No. 32/2007 and was granted till 4. 10. 2007. On 4. 10. 2007, J. M. F. C. Desaiganj refused further police custody in Crime No. 32/2007 and remanded them to magisterial custody. However, immediately
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.