JUDGMENT

(Per: Honourable The Chief Justice)

1. The issue, which arises for consideration before us, is as to whether, at this point in time, the petitioners detention in connection with Nardiganj P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017 dated 27.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal or not.

2. It is a matter of record that F.I.R. was registered on 27.11.2017.

3. According to the writ petitioner, who is accused in the said case, he is a victim of local politics. He is a man of means having roots in the society and was never called by the police in connection with the said F.I.R. It is only when he filed nomination for election to the local Co-operative Society, the police, under the influence of local politicians, arrested him on 17.11.2019.

4. Well, in this petition we need not go into such controversy, for what is required to be adjudicated is as to whether the petitioners detention post 17.11.2019 is illegal or not.

5. It is a matter of record that after his arrest on 17.11.2019, the petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate.

6. In order to satisfy ourselves with regard to the petitioners detention, we summoned the entire judicial record, which we have perused.

7. On 17.11.2019, when the accused/writ petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, the following order was passed:

17-11-19 Fkkuk izHkkjh ukjnhxt }kjk vxzlkj.k izfrosnu fxj¶rkjh Kkikd ,oa v/kru dk.M nSfudh dh Nk;k izfr ds lkFk vfHk;qDr dqUnu dekj mez 40 o"kZ is- izlknh pkSgku lk0 lEgMh Fkkuk ukjnhxt] ftyk uoknk dk vkjksi dh /kkjk 364] 506] 134 Hkk-n-oh- ds vrZxr fxj¶rkj dj mfpr vfHkj{kkny ds }kjk U;k;ky; ea izLrqr djk;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr dks iwNus ij vfHkj{kkny ds }kjk jkLrs esa fdlh izdkj dk nqO;Zgkj dk f'kdk;r ugh djrs agSa rFkk iwNus ij viuk vf/koDrk Lo;a j[kus dh ckr Lohdkjrsa gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dks fnukd 29-11-19 rd ds fy, vfHkj{kk vf/ki= ds lkFk U;kf;d fgjklr esa eMy dkjk uoknk fjekM fd;k tkrk gSA

¼ys[kkfir½

g0@

U;k0n0^^

8. Even from bare reading thereof, it cannot be inferred that the concerned Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction, as is mandated in law.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , only with the endeavour of safeguarding the interest of the accused and ensuring that persons are not illegally detained, as is mandated under the constitution and the law of the land, issued the following directions:

'11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC ;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b) (ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may b