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

1956 Supreme(All) 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. Bhargava and Sahai, JJ.
SHRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ 1893 Of 1956
Decided On : 09/12/1956

Advocates Appeared:
M.N.Shukla, RAMA, SUSHIL KUMAR

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 107, 112, 113, 114, 117, 151, 167 - ARREST AND DETENTION - VALIDITY - PROCEDURE FOR TAKING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 107 - NECESSITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS - ILLEGAL DETENTION - HABEAS CORPUS - WRIT ISSUED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, members of the District Hind Kisan Panchayat, Mathura, were arrested and detained under warrants issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata, alleging imminent danger of breach of peace. They challenged the validity of their arrest and detention, claiming mala fide action by the police and non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the initial arrest of the petitioners was justified based on the police report alleging imminent danger of breach of peace. However, the subsequent detention of the petitioners in jail was held to be illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues: 1. Whether the initial arrest of the petitioners was justified. 2. Whether the subsequent detention of the petitioners in jail was in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the initial arrest of the petitioners was justified based on the police report alleging imminent danger of breach of peace. 2. The Court held that the subsequent detention of the petitioners in jail was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the Court found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 112, 113, 114, and 117 of the Code, which govern the procedure for taking proceedings under Section 107. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to these provisions to ensure the protection of individual liberty.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and directed the immediate release of the petitioners, holding that their continued detention was illegal.

V. BHARGAVA, J.


( 1 ) THIS, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal procedure was presented by Shravan Kumar Gupta requesting this Court for issue of a writ of habeas Corpus in respect of 8 persons Radhey Shiam, Joshi, Pujari Tika Ram, Thakur Lakhi singh, Bharat Singh, Loharey Singh, Teja Singh, Hoti Lal and Bam Singh, who were being detained in the district jail Mathura under warrants issued to the jail authorities by the sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata. The circumstances under which these persons were detained, as given by Shravan Kumar Gupta, are that all these 8 persons as well as the petitioner Shravan Kumar Gupta are members of the district Hind Kisan Panchayat, Mathura or the District Socialist Party of Mathura. These two parties decided to hold a Workers Training Camp with some public meetings on the 6th, 7th and 8th of August, 1956 in village Chaumha Sub-Division Chhata, district Mathura, the place for the camp so fixed is a local compound belonging to Thakur Har Govind Singh, when the camp actually came to be held, however, it was found that that compound was not spacious enough and consequently the camp was held under a neem tree near a grove known as bairagion Ki Baghechi. On the evening of the 7th August, 1956 Radhey Shyam and Thakur lakhi Singh were approached by the District Magistrate of Mathura, the Superintendent of police, Mathura, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata with a request that they should desist from holding their public meeting the next day under the neem tree as a meeting organised by the Congress was going to be held in Bairagion Ki Baghechi and that meeting was to be addressed by Shri Charan Singh, the Minister for Revenue. These two persons refused to comply and insisted that their meeting would be held under the neem tree. On 8th August, 1956 at about 8 a. m. all these eight persons who are under detention assembled under the neem tree and, while they were occupied in making preparations for the meeting, the station officer of police station Chhata came there with a number of constables, snatched away the mike which was being installed and flung It away. The sub-inspector and the constables shouted that they would not tolerate the audacity of any meeting being held at the instance of the detenus when another public meeting was going to be addressed by the Minister for Revenue close by. The police arrested all these 8 persons and took them in custody after dragging them along the ground and forced them into a vehicle. These persons were then taken to the police station Chhata and were confined in a very small cell wherein they were huddled together with great difficulty. On 9th August. 1956, the detenus were taken out of the police lock-up and were sent to the district jail, Mathura at about 10-30 a. m. They Were kept waiting outside the Jail. At about 3 p. m. they were admitted in the jail. In the meantime, at about 11 a. m. an application was made by one Radhey Shiam Chaturvedi, appearing as counsel for all these persons who had been detained, before Shri Tejpal Singh, sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata alleging that more than 24 hours had elapsed since the arrest of the detenus and they had not yet been produced before any magistrate go that their detention had become illegal. The prayer was that the station officer of the police station Chhata be directed to release the detenus. A further prayer made was that a note be made on the application that the detenus had not till then been produced before any magistrate. The learned sub-divisional magistrate merely marked that application to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Later on, at about 2-30 p. m. , the same counsel on behalf of the detenus moved another similar application before the same learned Sub-divisional Magistrate and that was also sent to the assistant Public Prosecutor for his report. It was further alleged that, even though a number of days had passed thereafter, no written orde










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