SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(All) 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. SARAN
DEVENDRA SINGH NEGI ALIAS DEBU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. MISC. APPLN. 12627 Of 1992
Decided On : 03/18/1993

Advocates Appeared:
RAJENDRA DHOBHAL

The court held that the CJM had not acted in accordance with the order of the court and the provisions of the CrPC and that the attachment of the applicant's property was invalid.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 82, 83 - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - REASONABLENESS - ARBITRARINESS - SATISFACTION OF MAGISTRATE - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANCES - PROCEDURE - TRANSFER OF CASE - BIASED ATMOSPHERE - SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF BAIL APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu, filed an application for modification of a previous order directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate Incharge Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, to consider his surrender and bail application without delay. The applicant alleged that the police was trying to arrest him based on a confession made by co-accused, which was inadmissible, and that bail matters were being dealt with lethargically in Tehri Garhwal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sri Naresh Jain, was trying to circumvent the order of the court by not allowing the applicant to surrender in court and by giving a free hand to the police to arrest the applicant. The court also found that the CJM had not taken the applicant into custody when he surrendered but had instead passed an order directing him to report to a police station. The court further found that the CJM had not followed the mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the attachment of the applicant's property was without jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the CJM had acted in accordance with the order of the court and the provisions of the CrPC. 2. Whether the attachment of the applicant's property was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CJM had not acted in accordance with the order of the court and the provisions of the CrPC. The court found that the CJM had not taken the applicant into custody when he surrendered and had instead passed an order directing him to report to a police station. The court also found that the CJM had not followed the mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC and that the attachment of the applicant's property was without jurisdiction. 2. The court held that the attachment of the applicant's property was invalid. The court found that the CJM had not followed the mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC and that the attachment of the applicant's property was without jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC against the applicant and directed that the property be released forthwith. The court also directed that the applicant be allowed to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Dehradoon, within one month and that the Sessions Judge shall dispose of his bail application in the manner directed by the order of the court dated 30-9-1992.

V. SARAN, J.

( 1 ) DEVENDRA Singh Negi alias Debu filed this aplication on 8-1-1993 for modification of my order dated 30-9-1992 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12627 of 1992. It was prayed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Incharge Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal be directed to consider the surrender and bail application of the applicant without further delay.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that an F. I. R was lodged on 23-3-1992 by one Sanjay Sharma at Police Station Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garwal, under Section 302, I. P. C. and the same was registered as Crime No. 10 of 1992. It was stated in the F. I. R. that on 20-3-1992 at 11 a. m. one Indrajeet Singh was murdered by three persons, namely, Yogendra Datt Panwar, Nand Kishore alias Nandu and Rishi. There was no mention that any person other than the three named in the F. I. R. also participated in the crime.

( 3 ) THE applicant filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. stating that the police was trying to arrest him on the strength of a so called confession made by co-accused Rishi and Yogendra Singh to the police which was not even admissible and there was hardly any other material against the applicant. The applicant had set up a case of mala fide on the part of the police and the learned counsel had further submitted that the bail matters were being dealt with in a lethargic manner at Tehri Garhwal. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, it was directed that if the applicant surrendered and applied for bail, his bail application may be considered the same day by the learned Magistrate concerned, but if the disposal of the bail application was adjourned, the applicant may be released on executing a personal bond till such adjourned date only. The same relief was granted in respect of bail application if moved before the Court of Sessions. This order was passed on 30-9-1992. The present application has been moved on 8-1-1993 stating that even though the applicant wanted to surrender he was not taken into custody and that Sri Naresh Jain, learned C. J. M. , Tehri Garhwal, was trying to circumvent and defeat the order of this Court by not allowing the applicant to surrender in court and, thus, giving a free hand to the police to arrest the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R. Dobhal, prayed that a direction may be issued to the learned C. J. M. to take the applicant in judicial custody when he surrenders without giving a long rope which may enable the police to arrest the applicant, use third-degree methods and humiliate the applicant.

( 4 ) CERTIFIED copies of the surrender application dated 29-1-1992, the bail application and the order passed by Sri Naresh Jain on 29-10-1992 have been placed on record. The original record from the court of learned C. J. M. has also been summoned. The surrender application filed by the applicant on 29-10-1992 makes a mention of the order passed by this Court on 30-9-1992. The record further reveals that a photo copy of the order of this Court was also filed before the learned C. J. M. Not only this, it was clearly mentioned in paragraph 2 of the surrender application that attachment of property has already been made in pursuance of the process issued under Section s. 82/83 Cr. P. C. Even though the applicant has been proclaimed as absconder and the property had been attached Sri Naresh Jain, the learned C. J. M. did not take the applicant in cusody when he surrendered but passed the following order :- "a. P. O.- Please report by 4-l1-92 at Kirti Nagar. "

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant wanted to surrender as he apprehended danger of his life and limbs if he fell in the hands of the police but the learned C. J. M. fixed 4-11-1992 and allowed the applicant to walk away even though a proclamation has already been issued by the same court declaring the applicant to be an absconder. Thus the learned C. J. M. was trying to circumvent the order passed
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top