Point of Law: Order of Detention - B -Warrant was issued in reference to five to seven cases and not for all. Even if chart given by petitioner is taken into consideration, it shows custody pursuant to other cases and not in pursuant to B-Warrant in all cases – Court not find it to be a case of illegal detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate for the respondents and the learned A.G.A.

2. A writ of habeas corpus has been filed alleging illegal detention of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was registered against the petitioner followed by many other FIRs on same set of facts. The bail was granted to him in few cases but the petitioner has not been released. The petitioner is detained pursuant to B-Warrant though the detention pursuant to B-Warrant is not permissible.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Muthuramalingam vs. State dated 01.07.2010 in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1151 of 2010. There a reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Dass Ram vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1987 SC 1333 has been given. It has been held that detention pursuant to P.T. Warrant is illegal if the accused has already been acquitted or granted bail. In the instant case, the petitioner has been granted bail in the criminal case registered against him, thus the said bail should have been taken to be bail in all other cases because allegation in all the FIRs subsequent to first are identical.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the counter affidavit so as the order passed by this Court to show admission of the A.S.G. regarding detention of the petitioner pursuant to B-Warrant. It is admitted by the learned A.G.A. that one cannot be detained pursuant to B-Warrant. A reference of the cases has been given where B-Warrant has been issued. Accordingly, the petitioner should be released.

6. The petition has been contested by the A.S.G. He submits that a reference of B-Warrant has been given ignoring as to how many cases have been registered against the petitioner and in which he has been arrested. At one stage, it was brought to to the notice of the Court that petitioner has obtained bail in around 50 cases. The aforesaid is coming out from the order dated 1.9.2020 passed by this Court. The report of other cases registered against the petitioner was also sought which has not been given to the Court.

7. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that around 100 cases have been registered against the petitioner. Copy of all the FIRs has not been enclosed to show that it contains one and same allegation. Petitioner can be taken into custody pursuant to the Criminal cases lodged against him unless bail is granted in such cases.

8. Grant of bail in one case does not mean bail in all cases registered separately. If that would have been so, there was no reason for the petitioner to apply for bail in each case because according to him, bail has been granted in around 50 cases leaving others. In view of the above, it is not a case of illegal detention because petitioner is not in custody pursuant to the B-Warrant but in reference to number of cases lodged against him. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the petitioner.

9. We have considered the rival submission of parties and perused the record.

10. A writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when it is a case of illegal detention. The petitioner was taken into custody pursuant to the criminal cases lodged against him. At one stage when bail was granted in one case, the petitioner could not be released in absence of completion of formalities. It is coming out from the order dated 15.10.20219 passed by this Court. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner to show compliance of required formalities for release. It is however a fact that petitioner is involved in more than 100 cases as per the statement of the counsel for the petitioner himself. It is alleged to be on one and same set of facts and allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to state that he has not filed a copy of all the FIRs lodged against the petitioner to verify that all