Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
R.K. Nabachandra Singh
Versus
Manipur Administration
Criminal Revn. Case No. 8 of 1963
Decided On : 01-08-1963
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 497(5) - Cancellation of bail - Grounds - Liberty of citizen - Duty of Police and Magistrate - Section 167(1) - Copy of entries in Police Diary - Production before Magistrate - Necessity - Section 63 - Discharge of arrested person - Conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested for allegedly kidnapping a girl, who was the daughter of a Police Officer. He was produced before the Magistrate, who granted him bail. The Police filed a petition before the Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail, alleging that the petitioner was a desperate character, that he was likely to kidnap the girl again, and that he had contacted some of the important witnesses since he was enlarged on bail. The Sessions Judge allowed the petition and remanded the petitioner to Jail custody.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Sessions Judge had erred in cancelling the bail. It held that the Police had failed to show that the petitioner should be remanded to custody, and that the vague allegations made in the petition for cancellation of bail were not sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. The Court also held that the Magistrate was right in granting bail to the petitioner, as he had not been satisfied that there were grounds for believing that the petitioner had committed a non-bailable offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the Magistrate? 2. Whether the Police had shown sufficient grounds for remanding the petitioner to custody? 3. Whether the vague allegations made in the petition for cancellation of bail were sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his liberty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the Magistrate, as he had not considered the question of whether the petitioner should be remanded to custody, and had instead criticized the Magistrate for granting bail. 2. The Police had not shown sufficient grounds for remanding the petitioner to custody, as they had not produced a copy of the entries in the Police Diary before the Magistrate, as required by Section 167(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The vague allegations made in the petition for cancellation of bail were not sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his liberty, as they were not supported by any evidence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the Magistrate granting bail to the petitioner.
This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 25-5-1963, by which he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the S. D. M., Imphal West, on 8-5-1963 and directed the bail petition to be heard afresh and to be disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate, instead of by the S. D. M., I. W.
2. The facts which relate to this revision petition are as follows :
On 6-5-1963, at about 10-30 a.m. a F.I.R. was lodged in the Imphal Police Station, by one Manglem Singh, a student in the D. M. College, stating that at about 10-00 a.m. when he was going to College, he saw one P. Sarojini, a student of the B. A. Class in the said College being forcibly taken near the new Radio Station and carried away in a Jeep towards the south by some unknown persons and that he suspected that the girl might have been kidnapped against her will. This girl happens to be the daughter of one P. Mani Singh, Inspector of Police, C. I. D.5 Imphal. On 7-5-1963, a S. L of Police, applied to the S. D. M., T. W. for the issue of a search warrant under S. 100 Cr. P.C. for the recovery of the girl from the house of one R.K. Mangisana Singh of Sagol-band. The Magistrate issued a search warrant immediately to the O/C., Imphal Police Station and the O/C directed S. I. Nandakishore Singh to execute it. A Police force then proceeded to the house of R.K. Mangisana Singh, to effect the recovery of the girl.
When the police force were at the said house, the petitioner herein, as well as the girl sent up a joint petition to the Additional District Magistrate stating that hearing that a case has been lodged against them, they were ready to surrender before the A. D. M.. but that they could not surrender as some Police officials with a great force had surrounded them and that they therefore prayed that proper facility may be given to them to surrender before the Court. They also added that they had eloped together on 6-5-1963 with mutual consent and agreement. On this petition, the A. D. M. issued an order to the O/C Imphal Police Station to produce the girl before the Magistrate concerned direct. But it would appear that in the meantime, the girl was taken into custody and the petitioner was arrested for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and both of them were taken to the Imphal Police Station, which was just across the road from the Court of the S. D. M., I. W. From there, the girl was produced before the S. D. M., I. W. who sent the girl before the S. D. M., Bishenpur, for recording her statement under S. 164 Cr. P. C. at the request of the Police. In the statement so recorded the girl who is admittedly 20 years of age stated that she was going to College on 6-5-1963 and that at about 10-15 a.m. she was carried away by force in a Jeep without her consent. She also said that for about 2 or 3 years, she had been in love with the petitioner and that about a month ago he had asked her to elope, but that she refused requesting him to wait for some time. After the statement was recorded, the S. D. M., I. W. I entrusted the girl to the custody of her father.
3. The petitioner, who was arrested at 3-00 P. M. on 7-5-1963, was not produced before the Magistrate on that date, but was kept in Police custody. One Joychandra Singh, on behalf of the petitioner, moved a bail petition through counsel before the S. D. M. stating that it was a case of pure elopement, that the petitioner was quite innocent of kidnapping and that investigation of the case will not be hampered by his being enlarged on bail. The Magistrate forwarded this petition to the O/C Imphal Police Station immediately for report through the person, who moved for the bail. This action of the Magistrate in sending through the person who moved for the bail has been severely criticised by the Sessions Judge. It was received by the O/C on 7-5-1963 itself and he sent it to the I/O for a report, but no report was submitted to the Court on 7-5-1963 and the petitioner continued
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
