1995 Supreme(All) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, KUNDAN SINGH
VIMAL KUMAR SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
HAB. COR. PETN. 29312 Of 1994
Decided On : 01/18/1995

A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued to release an accused person who is being detained in pursuance of a valid order of remand, even if there was an illegality in the arrest or order of commitment.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 50(1) - ARTICLE 22(1) - HABEAS CORPUS - ARREST - GROUNDS OF ARREST - COMMUNICATION - DETENTION - VALIDITY - REMAND ORDERS - SUBSEQUENT ORDERS OF REMAND - VALIDITY - ILLEGALITY IN ARREST - CURE BY SUBSEQUENT VALID ORDER OF REMAND - JURISDICTION OF COURT - WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - SCOPE - JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS - FUNDAMENTAL AND JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS - ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES - REVIEW - DEFECTS IN ARREST OR COMMITMENT - AVAILABILITY OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE - REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - DEFECTS IN COMMITMENT - REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS - SCOPE OF REVIEW - LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS - ERRORS IN COMMITMENT - REVIEW BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF ERROR - OMISSION OF NAME OF PRISONER FROM COMMITMENT - NOT A DEFECT ENTITLING DISCHARGE ON HABEAS CORPUS.

Fact of the Case:

Two Habeas Corpus Petitions were filed challenging the legality of the detention of the petitioners, who were arrested for murder. The petitioners claimed that the grounds of their arrest were not communicated to them at the time of arrest, in violation of Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought their release from custody.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners' contention that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them at the time of arrest was not supported by the evidence on record. The Court found that the police officers who arrested the petitioners had communicated the grounds of arrest to them, and that this was corroborated by entries in the police records. The Court also held that even if there had been a breach of Section 50(1) of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the petitioners could not be released from custody because they were being detained in pursuance of valid orders of remand passed by competent Magistrates. The Court further held that subsequent orders of remand passed by the Sessions Judge were also valid and that the petitioners' detention was therefore lawful.

Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioners at the time of arrest, as required by Section 50(1) of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners' detention was lawful, given that they were being detained in pursuance of valid orders of remand passed by competent Magistrates? 3. Whether subsequent orders of remand passed by the Sessions Judge were valid? 4. Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be issued to release an accused person who is being detained in pursuance of a valid order of remand, even if there was an illegality in the arrest or order of commitment?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the question of whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioners at the time of arrest is a pure question of fact that must be decided on the basis of the evidence on record in each case. The Court found that the evidence on record supported the conclusion that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioners. 2. The Court held that the petitioners' detention was lawful because they were being detained in pursuance of valid orders of remand passed by competent Magistrates. The Court noted that the Magistrates had jurisdiction to pass such orders and that the orders were not vitiated by any illegality. 3. The Court held that the subsequent orders of remand passed by the Sessions Judge were also valid. The Court noted that the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass such orders and that the orders were not vitiated by any illegality. 4. The Court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued to release an accused person who is being detained in pursuance of a valid order of remand, even if there was an illegality in the arrest or order of commitment. The Court noted that the function of a writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the detention, not to correct errors or irregularities in the arrest or order of commitment.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petitions, holding that the petitioners' detention was lawful and that they were not entitled to be released from custody.