IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. AGARWAL
HAFIZ AFZAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
CRI. M. B. A. 6195 Of 2001
Decided On : 10/29/2001
Detention - Production Warrant - Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, Section 57, Cr. P. C. and Section 167 (1), Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was detained in connection with an offence without any order of remand, claiming the detention to be illegal. The Union of India contended that the applicant's non-production in court had no bearing on the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention of the applicant was not under Section 167, Cr. P. C. and that the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P. C. were applicable to the case. The court rejected the bail application, stating that the trial of the applicant cannot be conducted without his production in court.
Issues: Detention without remand, applicability of different sections of Cr. P. C., and jurisdiction for bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention of the applicant was not under Section 167, Cr. P. C. and that the provisions of Section 309, Cr. P. C. were applicable to the case. The court also stated that the trial of the applicant cannot be conducted without his production in court.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri. P. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Union of India.
( 2 ) AS contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, b warrant (production or transit warrant) was served upon the applicant for the present offence during his incarceration in District Jail, Howrah (West Bengal) where he was confined in an offence of the same nature. His detention, therefore, in the present offence will be deemed from the date of service of the production warrant. The applicant was never produced in Court in the present case and no remand was obtained. In a nutshell his contention is that the detention of the applicant and his custody in the present case is illegal in the absence of any order of remand. There is no legal sanction behind his confinement in jail in the present offence. He drew my attention to Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, Section 57, Cr. P. C. and Section 167 (1), Cr. P. C. in support of his contention.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the applicant being involved in the offence at hand and production warrant having been served on him his non-production in this case in Court in the circumstances in pursuance to that has no bearing to the facts of this case. Since he was not produced in Court in this State, he is not detained in this case at all. He has referred to the order of the learned Sessions Judge also. A Division Bench judgment of this Court was also referred to. It is reported in 2000 Cri LJ 4125 : (2000 All LJ 2026) (Bobby alias Premveer v. State of U. P. ). In its paragraph No. 80, quoted as under, it has clearly been observed that "if the Criminal Courts transit warrant or b Warrant is executed and the prisoner is brought and produced, the Courts custody is to continue over the prisoner because of having secured the production of the prisoner through the b Warrant. " Thus, apparently, these lines clearly indicate that the production of the prisoner in pursuance to Transit Warrant or b Warrant before the Court which has directed its issuance for his production is a must. Following lines from paragraph No. 81 of the aforesaid judgment need reference in the context of this submission :"the arrest of the prisoner shall have been an accomplished fact known to the Court issuing b Warrant and the Investigating Officer seeking the b Warrant. Therefore, on the production of the accused in the criminal Court issuing the production warrant, his remand to judicial custody or police custody, has to be only in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the new Code. "
( 4 ) THE purpose behind issuance of b warrant is normally obtained to further cause of the investigation. It is generally claimed by any Investigating Officer to record the statement of any accused who is confined in some jail which is beyond his reach or control to obtain some incriminating information or for holding his test identification parade, or effecting some discoveries at his instance or his pointing out under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act or for obtaining his handwriting, finger prints and measurements from accused or getting some other test done which is permissible in law, etc. b warrants are generally obtained by an Investigating Officer when he has sufficient evidence in a particular offence which he is investigating against a prisoner who is confined in another jail either in the same State or outside that State in connection with some other offence. The purpose is to conclude the investigation against him in that offence. Issuance of b warrant does not contemplate a case of formal arrest on lodging of an F. I. R. , against an accused person. On receiving an F. I. R. regarding a cognizable offence by the Police Officer concerned under Section 154, Cr. P. C. , such a warrant is always sought by any Investigating Officer after he has collected sufficient material against such offender or prisoner. Such warrants
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.