Back
1992 Supreme(All) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PALOK BASU, S. K. VERMA, JJ.
SHER BAHADUR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
HAB. COR. PETN. 13545 Of 1992
Decided On : 05/25/1992
R.P.SINGH
The court clarified the requirements for compliance with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India and S. 50 of the Cr. P. C., emphasized the importance of disclosing the grounds of arrest to the accused, and reiterated the mandatory nature of producing the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Habeas Corpus - Arrest and Detention - Compliance with Art. 22 of the Constitution of India and S. 50 of the Cr. P. C. - Production of accused before Magistrate within 24 hours - Validity of remand orders - Grounds of arrest and particulars disclosed to the accused - Interpretation and application of relevant legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
Four Habeas Corpus petitions were filed challenging the legality of the arrest and detention of the petitioners in different cases. The main issues raised were whether the grounds of arrest and full particulars were disclosed to the petitioners at the time of arrest as required by Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioners were detained for a period more than necessary, in violation of Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
1. Compliance with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India and S. 50 of the Cr. P. C. requires a complete note in the general diary specifying the actual compliance in so many words as envisaged by the aforesaid provisions. 2. Non-compliance with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India or S. 50 of the Cr. P. C. does not necessarily frustrate the trial of the case if the arrest is held to be illegal on that limited ground. 3. The requirement to disclose the reasons for arrest to the accused does not exist if the circumstances are such that the accused must know or obviously knows the general nature of the alleged offence. 4. Production of the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours is mandatory, and any delay in doing so without justification may render the arrest and detention illegal. 5. The validity of remand orders depends on whether the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case and has passed a reasoned order justifying the remand.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of arrest and full particulars were disclosed to the petitioners at the time of arrest as required by Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners were detained for a period more than necessary, in violation of Art. 22(2) of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the remand orders obtained by the police were valid and justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proof of compliance with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India and S. 50 of the Cr. P. C. lies in a complete note in the general diary specifying the actual compliance in so many words as envisaged by the aforesaid provisions. 2. The court observed that non-compliance with Art. 22(1) of the Constitution of India or S. 50 of the Cr. P. C. does not necessarily frustrate the trial of the case if the arrest is held to be illegal on that limited ground. 3. The court stated that the requirement to disclose the reasons for arrest to the accused does not exist if the circumstances are such that the accused must know or obviously knows the general nature of the alleged offence. 4. The court emphasized that production of the accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours is mandatory, and any delay in doing so without justification may render the arrest and detention illegal. 5. The court held that the validity of remand orders depends on whether the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case and has passed a reasoned order justifying the remand.
Final Decision: 1. The Habeas Corpus Petition No. 13545 of 1992 was allowed, and the petitioner Sher Bahadur Singh was ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 2. The Habeas Corpus Petitions No. 13688 of 1992, No. 12541 of 1992, and No. 7643 of 1992 were dismissed.
( 1 ) IN all the aforesaid four cases one of the points argued was that at the time of arrest of the petitioner in each case the ground of arrest and full particulars regarding it were not disclosed and, therefore, art. 22 (1) of the Constitution of India stood violated. The other question in all the four cases was whether the petitioner was detained for a period more than necessary and in some beyond 24 hours and, therefore, Art. 22 (2) of the Constitution of India was violated. On these two grounds it was argued that the continued detention of the petitioner in each case was illegal. Some questions of fact were raised relating to each case which shall be dealt with at the relevant place. It may be noted here that in all the cases counter affidavits by the relevant opposite parties have been filed to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being finally disposed at the admission stage. Sri R. P. Singh, Sri S. V. Goswami, Sri Prem Prakash Yadav and Sri D. S. Misra have been heard on behalf of the petitioners in each case respectively while Sri Shivaji Misra has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, all of whom have been heard at sufficient length.
( 2 ) THE facts in each case as pleaded by the respective sides are noted below : (1) Sher Bahadur Singhs petition. Petitioners case states case (I) On 23-4-91 at 10-30 a. m. Sher Bahadur Singh was arrested from the office of the C. M. O. Sultanpur by the Sub Inspector who told him that the petitioner is in custody and took him to Allahabad on 23-4-1992 and lodged him at the police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad. (i) Case Crime No. 402 / 92 u / S. 364, IPC State v. Sanjay Singh and other was registered at P. S. Colonelganj. The house of the petitioner was searched in Faizabad on 22-4-1992 but he was not traceable. The petitioner was arrested in Mohalla Katra Allahabad at 6-10 p. m. on 27-4-1992 after collecting materials against him showing his participation in murdering the abducted deceased. (II) C. M. O. wrote a letter to S. P. and another to District Magistrate, Sultanpur on 23-4-1992. (ii) Denied. (III) Manish, petitioners son, sent three telegrams to authorities on 23-4-1992. (iii) Telegrams and applications were not genuine and indicate peshbandi. (IV) Petitioner not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Informant (Ravindra Pratap) of a case relating to the alleged murder of Bhupendra Kumar Singh was seen at the police station. (iv) After the arrest of the petitioner he was forwarded to the court of A. C. J. M. , Allahabad for remand on 28-4-1992 but as the petitioner reached the court at 4-30p. m. by which time Magistrate had retired. therefore,. he was remanded to judicial custody on 29-4-1992. (V) Affidavit in this case was sworn on 28-4-1992 and the affidavit was filed in the afternoon which was taken up on 29-4-1992. (v) The entries of arrest and challan have not been produced but a report of the Court Moharrir allegedly dated 8-5-1992 produced as Annexure-SCA 2. (2) Mahendra Bhushans petition petitioners case states case (I) Petitioner No. 2 Ashwini Kumar was arrested on 27-4-1992 at 6 p. m. and taken to P. S. Colonelganj, Allahabad. (i) Petitioner No. 2 arrested on 30-4-1992 at 10 p. m. in case Crime No 556 / 92 under S. 460/411, IPC and from his possession Rs. 215. 00 were recovered which was looted praperty. (II) Telegram sent by father Mahendra Bhushan regarding his sons arrest on 28-4 l992 and again on 29-4-1992 addressed to the authorities. (II) Telegrams were by way of Peshbandi (iii) The accused was not shown the reasons of his arrest and was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. (iii)The accused was produced within 24 hours i. e. , on 1-5-1992 before the Magistrate concerned who has remanded him to judicial custody and he is in jail. (3) Israr Ahmads petition petitioners case states case (1)ON 8/9-4-1992 the petitioner
