The main legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional right of an under-trial to be protected during the investigation against torture and self-incrimination, and the court's authority to ensure fair treatment and control over the investigation.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are threesome, brothers, who complain that they have been framed up to resemble mythical figures. Three Musketeers of Alexandra Dumas. But, the question to be decided by us in these two petitions is of direction, if any, to be made on the writ side to ensure fair investigation of the crime allegedly authorized by them because they have claimed enforcement of their fundamental right to a fair trial grounded on such investigation.

( 2 ) ON 2-4-1987, an under-trial prisoner and a Police constable were shot dead and petitioners have been booked for that offence. A notorious criminal, Ravi Pande, with goriest of track record, it is admitted, was one of the victims. It is also admitted that the occurrence took place when he was being escorted back from the Court with co-prisoner Bhagwandas Kamaria, of almost equal notoriety. It has also come on record, that Head Constable Ramnand Singh was the other member of the escort party - who was injured in the shoot out. It is alleged that petitioners came in two cars of which one was stolen from Delhi and they fired at the escort party and that the facts were disclosed in the F. I. R. which the injured Head Constable had lodged at Inderganj Police Station, Gwalior as an eye-witness to the occurrence, on which Crime Case No. 130/87 was registered.

( 3 ) ON 16-10-1987, the instant petition as also petition in the connected matter, M. P. No. 818 of 1987, came to be filed in this Court. Both petitions have been heard analogously as an order was made on 2-2-1988 in the connected matter in that regard. On 21-10-1987, on the two, petitions respondents were noticed, pursuant whereto they filed returns on 18-12-1987. Be it mentioned here that the same grievance is made in the two petitions against the respondents that the Police is acting in a high-handed and partisan manner and that the petitioners have been falsely implicated out of grudge which some high police officers bear against them. They came with the prayer that investigation of the case against them be transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department of the State and that the petitioners be permitted to have a lawyer of their choice to protect them in the course of investigation. When the return came on record, a rejoinder of "reply to return" was filed by the petitioners on 28-1-1988, in which besides controverting the averments made in the return, they submitted that they apprehended being "liquidated in false encounters or otherwise" by the police. They prayed for protection of their life and limb and offered to surrender in Court and participate in the investigation to prove that they had been falsely implicated in the case.

( 4 ) ON 3-2-1988, accordingly, after hearing counsel, an interim order was passed making certain directions. The petitioners were allowed to surrender in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, on 10-2-1988 and the Police was directed not to apprehend them or deal with them in any manner till they came before the Court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to commit the petitioners on their surrender, to be lodged in Gwalior Central Jail, until further orders and the Jail Superintendent was directed to ensure that at the time when the petitioners are received for lodgment in Jail, they are examined by the Jail Doctor. The Police was denied access to them in Jail and they were directed to obtain orders from this Court if the petitioners were required to be interrogated in the course of investigation of the crime. On 10-2-1988, an application (I. A. II) being filed on behalf of the respondents by the Investigation Officer, the matter was listed in Court for orders on 11-2-1988. However, in the meantime, respondents had preferred a petition for Special Leave to appeal against the order passed by us on 3-2-1988 and, therefore it was submitted before us on 12-2-1988 by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that he would not press. I. A. XI and