Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMITAVA LALA AND SHIV SHANKER, JJ.
NABBU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Cri. Misc. W. P. 10821 Of 2005
Decided On : 03/06/2006
production warrant - transfer of petitioner - Section 267 (1) Cr. P. C. - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the court to require the attendance of prisoners for answering to a charge or for the purpose of any proceedings against them. The court emphasized that a production warrant does not constitute a detention order and does not authorize the detention of a person in prison. It also highlighted the obligation of the Superintendent of District Jail to comply with the production warrants issued by the concerned courts, provided that the date of appearance has not expired or a fresh warrant has not been received. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with valid production warrants and the absence of authority to detain a person after the expiry of the warrant's date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ petition to prevent his transfer from District Jail, Bulandshahar to other districts in compliance with production warrants issued by different courts. The petitioner had been accused in multiple cases and was in judicial custody. The petitioner argued that the production warrant should not be treated as a detention warrant and that the Superintendent of District Jail was obligated to release him after receiving release orders from the court of Bulandshahar. The respondents contended that the petitioner should be sent in compliance with the production warrants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the production warrant does not constitute a detention order and emphasized the obligation of the Superintendent of District Jail to comply with valid production warrants. It also noted that the petitioner's transfer would be premature until the release order in the pending case was received. The court highlighted the absence of authority to detain the petitioner after the expiry of the production warrant's date.
Issues: The issues revolved around the treatment of production warrants as detention warrants, the obligation of the Superintendent of District Jail to comply with the warrants, and the premature nature of the petitioner's transfer before the receipt of the release order in the pending case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that a production warrant does not authorize detention and highlighting the obligation to comply with valid production warrants. The court also considered the premature nature of the petitioner's transfer before the receipt of the release order in the pending case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order passed as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner, nabbu @ Navab s/o Babu Sakka praying for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, Superintendent of District Jail, Bulandshahar not to transfer the petitioner from District Jail. Bulandshahar to any other district in pursuance of the production warrant issued from the other courts of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad) and chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh) and also direct respondent no. 2 to release the petitioner from the custody.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts of this petition are that the petitioner has been made accused by the police of police Station Syana, District bulandshahar in Case Crime No. 63 of 2005, under Sections 379 and 411 I. P. C. and Case crime No. 66 of 2005, under Section 25 Arms act. He has also been made accused in case crime No. Nill of 2005, under Section 41 / 102 Cr. P. C. and Sections 414,411 I. P. C. and in Case Crime No. 64 of 2005, under Section 307 I. P. C. and 2/3 U. P. Gangsters Act.
( 3 ) AFTER his arrest, he was sent to jail by the police in connection with all the above four cases on 19-6-2005. Since then, he is in jail at Bulandshahar under the custody of respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the requisition dated 3. 8. 2005 was received by respondent no. 2 from the court of Additional Chief judicial Magsitrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad)requiring respondent no. 2 to produce the petitioner before him in connection with Case crime no. 912 of 2002, under Section 379 and 411 I. P. C. , Police Station Hapur Nagar. District Ghaziabad.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the second set of requisition dated 27-8-2005 was also received by respondent no. 2 regarding the petitioner requiring him to produce him before Chief judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)cm 22-9-2005 at 11. 00 A. M. Both production warrants are annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the petition.
( 5 ) PETITIONER has been granted bail in all the above four cases relating to District bulandshahar and bail bonds have been filed and accepted and release orders have also been sent to respondent no. 2 except in case crime no. 64 of 2005, under Section 307 i. P. C. and 2/3 Gangsters Act.
( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner contacted to respondent no. 2 about this requisition/production/b warrant then he informed to the counsel for the petitioner that aforementioned requisition/production/ b Warrants have been received by him. The petitioner furnished bail bonds and were accepted by the court. Even immediately after receiving release order of the petitioner from the custody in the cases of District Bulandshahar, the petitioner shall be transferred to the requisite court. Thereafter, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
( 7 ) HEARD the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A. G. A. for respondents and perused the record available before this Court.
( 8 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the production warrant cannot be treated as detention warrant and respondent no. 2 is under obligation to release the petitioner forthwith from the custody after receiving the release order from the court of bulandshahar but respondent no. 2 did not accept the plea of the petitioner. It Is well settled that the requisition/production warrant/ b is not the custody warrant, as it has been held in several pronouncements. It ts further contended that no any date has been given in the production warrant sent by the court of A. C. J. M. Hapur (Ghaziabad)and in another production warrant the date has already been expired. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be transferred to other courts from the Jail of Bulandshahar. In such circumstances respondent no. 2 has no authority to detain the petitioner withoutany warrant of District Court Bulandshahar, and as such his detention becomes illegal and without authority of law. It is further contended that no action can be tak
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
