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

2020 Supreme(Chh) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.1196 of 2019
Decided On : 17-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain and Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the arrest of an accused pursuant to a warrant, even after being enlarged on bail, may not be unauthorized if the warrant was not recalled as per the Supreme Court's mandate.

Headnote:

Arrest - Recall of Warrant - IPC 294, 506, 323, 427 - CrPC 70(2)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested despite being enlarged on bail and having furnished bail bonds. The court analyzed the recall of the unexecuted permanent warrant of arrest and the communication failure between the judicial magistrate and the police authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the arrest of the petitioner was not unauthorized and was supported by law, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to proceed against his unauthorized detention and claim damages.

Issues: The issues revolved around the recall of the unexecuted warrant of arrest, communication failure between the judicial magistrate and the police authorities, and the legality of the petitioner's arrest after being enlarged on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin, which held that the arrest of the accused pursuant to a warrant cannot be said to be without authority of law in certain situations.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner remained in jail due to the unexecuted warrant of arrest, and the court directed appropriate action against the concerned judicial magistrate for not recalling the warrant despite the Supreme Court's mandate.

JUDGMENT

1. First information report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 427 of the IPC by Police Station Marwahi in which he was declared absconded by issuing permanent warrant of arrest on 21-2-2018, thereafter, he filed W.P.(Cr.)No.491/2018 in which this Court granted him liberty to file an application under Section 70(2) of the CrPC for cancellation of permanent warrant of arrest before the concerned Judicial Magistrate which he filed and ultimately, he was released on bail on 5-1-2019 and pursuant to that order of release of the petitioner on bail, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwahi directed to recall the un-executed permanent warrant of arrest already issued against him. However, the un-executed warrant was not recalled and ultimately, the petitioner was arrested on 13-3-2019 and he was released on the same day.

2. This writ petition has been filed merely on the ground that once the petitioner was enlarged on bail and he has furnished bail bonds, permanent warrant of arrest ought to have been recalled by any means by the Judicial Magistrate First Class who had issued the warrant, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2012) 9 SCC 791 but that was not recalled and ultimately, the petitioner was arrested and thus, he has suffered trauma for which the Station House Officer and other concerned are responsible, as such, enquiry be directed against them. Even otherwise, the petitioner was also not produced before the Court after arrest, that is also totally uncalled for and is arbitrary action on the part of the Station House Officer.

3. Return has been filed by the State/respondents opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating that though the order issuing permanent warrant of arrest was recalled while passing order under the application filed under Section 70(2) of the CrPC, but that was never communicated by the concerned Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Police Station Marwahi, and therefore the petitioner was arrested on 13-3-2019 and he was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Circuit Court) at Pendra Road and on being informed that he had already been granted bail, he was immediately released. As such, on account of information about recall of warrant not being supplied by the concerned Court to the Station House Officer, the petitioner was arrested and that would amount to sufficient cause for his arrest and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that arrest of the petitioner after having been enlarged on bail and after having furnished bail bonds is totally arbitrary and uncalled for and it is flagrant violation of human rights at the hands of the State authorities for which appropriate legal action be taken against the respondents police officers by issuing appropriate writ or direction. He would further submit that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 65 years and is an income tax payee and is also a member of the Nagar Shanti Samiti of Police Station Marwahi, as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after enlarging the petitioner on bail and after furnishing bail bonds did not inform the Station House Officer, Marwahi therefore, the petitioner was arrested in compliance of the permanent warrant of arrest which remained un-executed till 13-3- 2019, otherwise, there was no reason not to comply the order of the Court and to arrest the petitioner. He would further submit that the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and that of the Director General of Police, Raipur have already been filed. It is a bona fide mistake on account of non-communicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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