LexMANOJ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MAN OJ
v.
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH
APRIL 5, 1999
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Ss. 167 (1) & (2) and 57-Arrest
Accused not produced before the Magistrate within 24hrs.-Ejfect of-Held,
detention beyond the period of 24hrs. unlawful-Accused entitled to be
C released on bail-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985-
S. I 5 Constitutiqn of India-Art. 22.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, I 985-Applicability
of the proviso to S.167 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
D
Appellant was arrested for an offence under S.15 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychhtropic Substances Act, 1985 by Rajasthan Police. He was
also involved in an offence under the Act in a Mdahya Pradesh case. Thus,
while he was in custody in Rajasthan case, he was recorded as arrested in
Madhya Pradesh case. His application for bail in Rajasthan case was allowed,
but he was not released because of his involvement in M.P. case. His application
E for bail in M.P. case was rejected by both the Sessions Court and High Court.
F
Since no chargesheet was filed in the said case even after expiry of ninety
days, he moved an application for bail under S.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The Special Court rejected the bail application on the
ground that as he was never produced before the court after his arrest, the
completion of investigation within ninety days does not arise. On appeal,
High Court also rejected his bail application. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Constitution mandates that a person arrested and detained
in custody shall be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of such
G arrest. However, in the instant case, appellant was not produced before the
Magistrate after his arrest and thus his detention is unlawful. Consequently,
appellant is entitled to be released on bail on execution of the bond.
[407-A-C; E]
2. Section 167 (1) Cr. P.C. provides that the police officer who conducts
H investigation cannot obviate the legal obligation to perform two requisites if
402
MANOJ v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH {THOMAS, J.]
403
he knows that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours after arrest A
of the accused. One requisite is, to transmit a copy of the case diary to the
nearest judicial magistrate. The other is, to forward the accused to such
magistrate simultaneously. The only exceptional ground on which the police
officer can avoid producing the arrested person before such magistrate is
when the officer concerned is satisfied that there are no grounds for believing B
that the information or accusation was well-founded. In such a case, the
accused must be released from custody to which he was interred pursuant
to the arrest. [406-C-E)
3. The plea that appellant was under detention pursuant to his arrest
in Rajasthan case and thus there was inability to produce him before the C
nearest magistrate within the required period cannot be accepted, as law
recognises no such excuse. [407-D]
4. The benefit of the proviso to S. 167(2 of the Code would endue to an
accused involved in the offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. [405-B]
D
Union of India v. Thamisharasi and Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 190, relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 371 of
1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.98 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in M Crl.C.No.4513of1998.
U.R. Lalit and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellant.
E
R. Anoop G. Chaudhary, Uma Nath Singh, Ms. Madhur Dadlani and F
Naveen Kumar Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Appellant is caught between Scylla Charybdis. Such a peculiar situation
arises but rarely for an accused and he remains in jail for long, without
conviction in any case, despite obtaining an order of bail as the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh expressed helplessness in considering his plea for release,
G
though he has a legal point in his favour.
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999) 2 S.C.R.
A
The aforesaid situation was reached on the following facts. On 22.6.1998
appellant was arrested in connection with a case involving Section I 5 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, I 985 (For short the 'NDPS
Act) registered by the police of Kota in Rajasthan (it can be referred to as
"the Rajasthan case", for convenience) and is remaining in custExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.