MANTOO MAJUMDAR & BASDEV SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1105 · Decided: 27-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-• I 
• 
' 
1105 
MANTOO MAJUMDAR & BASDEV SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
February 27, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Cod• of Criminal Procedure 1914--&ction 161(2)-Accused persons detained 
in prison for over six years without investigation or fra1ni11g: of charges-
Legality of. 
The two petitioners have been imprisoned for seven years in various prisoas 
on the basis that they were implicated in several cases of 1971 and 1972. In 
their habeas corpus petition they impugned their continued detention in prison 
without trial. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : The petitioners should be released forthwith. 
[1109E] 
(1) Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
empowers 
the 
A 
B 
c 
magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in such custody as he 
D 
thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. The section also 
provides that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person 
exceeding 90 days in grave cases and 60 days in lesser cases, and that on the 
expiry of the said period the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared 
to and does furnish bail. 
[1108H] 
(2) Apart from mentioning the sections in the Penal Code by way of " 
passport into the prison house, there is no mention of any investigation of the 
E 
cases, nor was a charge sheet laid beifore the court against either accused. Even 
the magistracy have bidden farewell to their primary obligation. 
[!108E] 
(3) Although in these cases many years have passed the magistrates have 
been mechanically authorising repeated detentions unconscious of the provi· 
sions of law. 
[1109B] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1149 of 1979. 
F 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution.) 
V. N. Ganpu/e for the Petitioners. 
U. P. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-No Constitution nor Code nor Court call ink:r-
dict illegal incarceration where couscientized agencies of the law at the 
grass-roots level are absent. Such is the only explanation for the law-
less lot of the two prisoners who are petitioners before us. These two 
humans sojourning for long years in some jail or other in Bihar since 
1972 found their personal liberty subverted by the police, prison offi-
cials and the magis'racy that they wrote letters to the Hon. Chief 
J nstice in desperation. 
The above habeas corpus petition is a legal 
G 
n 
A 
B 
D 
E 
G 
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 s.c.R. 
incarnation of those letters. Sensitired by the prima jacie hideous facts 
disclosed the court directed a rule to issue. 
Somehow, despite several 
adjournments the State did not ewn furnish the basic facts abont the 
imprisonment of the petitioners, the offences for which they were 
kept in judicial custody, for how long and at what stage were the 
proceeding.; and the like. This gross indifference of the Bihar State 
in regard to citizens depriYed of their liberty for indefinite and pro-
longed spells is an unconscionable aspect of that State's unconcern 
for human rights. Indeed, counsel for the State did his level best to 
get relevant information. Being at the end of our patience and find-
ing a helpless counsel, we had to pass an onder in the following 
terms : 
-
It is noticed that an order dated 17-12-1979 directed 
jail authorities and District Magistrates under whose juris-
diction the petitioners are kept in confinement to explain 
-· b.efore 14 .. 1-80 the nautre of the charges against the peti-
tioners, the stage of trial of each of these cases and 
the 
reason for the delay in proceeding with the trial. It is sur-
prising that despite communication having been 
made to 
them thr011gh the State, counsel for the State represents 
that telex message to the concerned District Magistrate and 
jail authorities had been sent, but ho information has 
yet 
been furnished in compliance with this Court's order. We 
are constrained therefore to issue notice to the jail authorities 
ltnd the District Magistrates to show cause why action for 
violation of this Court's direction should not be taken against 
them. 
The Court will issue notice to be personally served 
on these authorities with a direction that they shall appear 
in Court in person on 25-2-1980. Counsel for the State 
undertakes to furnish the names of the District Magistrate 
concerned and jail authorities by 
12-2-1980. 
Post 
the 
matter 
on 13-2-1980 with office 
report whether the 
counsel has submitted nam

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.