Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC regarding the supply of copies of documents to the accused before passing the order of committal is an irregularity and does not render the order of committal illegal.

( 1 ) THIS is second bail application on behalf of Mushtaq Ahmed against whom there is a case under sections 302/307/ 324 I. P. C. from P. S. Shahganj, Allahabad. This bail application has been moved on technical grounds. The first bail application of this applicant was rejected by this Court on merits on 4-7-1983.

( 2 ) THE complainant opposite party has put in appearance through a counsel and has opposed the bail application.

( 3 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed a committal order against the applicant on 16-4-1983 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 207, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as he had not supplied copies of all the relevant documents to the applicant and, therefore, the committal order was illegal and the order remanding the applicant to judicial custody in pursuance of that committal order also became illegal. Because the custody of the applicant was illegal, he was entitled to be released on bail.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel has urged that in the decision State of U. P. v. Laxmi Braloman1, the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. were cast in a mandatory language, and there was an obligation upon the Magistrate to perform the judicial obligation of supplying all the necessary copies to the accused free of cost and it was after satisfying himself that the copies had been furnished to the accused, that the Magistrate could proceed to commit the accused, for trial to the court of session. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the decision Ram Narain Singh v. State of Delhi2, the Supreme Court had observed that; Those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law. He has also referred to the decision Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India3, and added that a person could be deprived of his personal liberty by a legal procedure which was fair reasonable and just; committal of the applicant to the court of session to stand his trial without supplying copies of all the relevant documents could not be regarded as a fair, reasonable and just procedure and it amounted to a violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) BEFORE examining the above legal submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the facts may be ascertained. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed certain certified copies and the learned counsel for the complainant opposite party has filed certified copy of the order of committal dated 16-4-1983. The lower court record was also summoned before this Court on 26-8-1983 to ascertain certain facts. The committal order inter alia says: The copies of relevant documents have been furnished to the accused. On the margin of the Hindi order sheet below the order dated 2-4-1983 the following endorsement in Hindi existed: AAudy ikjkr fh;k eqrkd vgen** It has not been disputed before me that this endorsement was made by the applicant. It seems that the word ikjkr has been wrongly written and really means izklr. Though no date appears in this endorsement, it appears it was made on 16-4-1983. A certified copy of paper No. 18-B on the file of the lower court shows that copies of four documents, namely, charge sheet, First Information Report, the site plan and fards were prepared. Certified copy of the application dated 18-4-1983 shows that the counsel for the applicant had made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate saying that the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. and copies of the injury report and the postmortem examination report had not been furnished to the accused and the same may be furnished. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the applicant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an or