ORDER :

1. The issue involved in both the cases are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. The petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in Crime No. 132 of 2019 (Crl. O.P. No. 18040 of 2020) and Crime No. 328 of 2019 (Crl. O.P. No. 14411 of 2020). The petitioner has several cases filed against him and he was in judicial custody in some other case. The respondent Police in both the cases effected a formal arrest through Prisoner on Transit Warrant (in short P.T. Warrant) on 03.04.2020 in Crl. O.P. No. 18040 of 2020 and on 11.05.2020 in Crl. O.P. No. 14411 of 2020, respectively. Even though the formal arrest took place on these two days, the petitioner was not immediately produced before the concerned Magistrate seeking for a remand in those cases.

3. Insofar as the case involved in Crl. O.P. No. 18040 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner was produced before the Court below only on 26.06.2020 and similarly in Crl. O.P. No. 14411 of 2020, the petitioner was produced before the Court below only on 21.08.2020 and he was remanded in both the cases. Questioning this inordinate delay in producing the petitioner before the Court below and the order of remand passed by the Court below, these criminal original petitions have been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State by Inspector of Police vs. K.N. Nehru, 2012 (1) MWN (Crl.) 4 submitted that the accused person who is secured through a P.T. warrant, should be produced immediately before the concerned Court, failing which, the detention becomes illegal and the same will violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The leaned counsel submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was produced before the Court below after an inordinate delay of nearly two months in Crl. O.P. No. 18040 of 2020 and three months in Crl. O.P. No. 14411 of 2020. The court below did not take into consideration this inordinate delay and had mechanically remanded the petitioner from the date of his production and as a result of the same, the petitioner lost his fundamental right of liberty guaranteed under the constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that by the time the petitioner was remanded in these two cases, he was enlarged on bail in all the other cases.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Police by relying upon the status report/counter filed in these cases submitted that there are several serious criminal cases pending against the petitioner and in the present cases, final report has already been filed against the petitioner and the same has been taken on file by the Court below in C.C. No. 166 of 2020 (Crl. O.P. No. 18040 of 2020) and in C.C. No. 1443 of 2020 (Crl. O.P. No. 14411 of 2020). The learned Government Advocate submitted that these cases are now at the stage of trial and a direction may be issued by this Court for early disposal of these cases.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7. The only issue that requires consideration of this court is as to whether the delay caused by the respondent Police in producing the petitioner before the Court below after formally arresting him through a P.T. warrant, will vitiate the remand order passed by the Court below?

8. The purpose of a P.T. warrant is only to direct the production of a person confined or detained in a prison through a lawful order. Such a warrant cannot be interpreted to mean that the same will authorize the Police to curtail the liberty of a person by keeping the accused person in custody till he is produced before the concerned Court. In other words, a person cannot be kept under remand on the strength of a PT warrant and he has to be necessarily produced before the concerned Court at the earliest point of t