LexMATHEW AREEPARMTIL & ORS. versus STATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
1'16
MATHEW AREEPARMTIL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF BlHAR AND ORS.
September 20, 1984
'i"
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.J
Code o/Crimt'nal Procedure, 1973, s. 144 ands. 169.
The writ petitioners brought to the notice of the Court thai a very large
number of people had been languishing in jails without trial for petty
offences.
Disposing of the writ petitions,
HELD: (I) In all cases instituted against the adivasi accused involving
s:!ntence of 7 years or more, they will be entitL:d to be released on considera-
tion of merit bY the court on executing a personal bond. These cases will be
disposed of on merits expeditiously. [777E]
(2) In 1he other cases where trial has already started and which do
not com~ whhin the first c;J.tegory, indicated above, the accused VYill be
E
entitled to be released 0'.1 bail on executing a personal bond in the absence
of very special circumstances. [777f-]
F
G
(3) In cases where no proceedings at all have taken place in regard to
the accused within 3 yeirs from the date of the lodging oi FIR, the accused
should be released forthwith under section 169 Cr. P.C. [777G]
{4) If there are other cas~s in which neither change sheet have been
subrllitted nor investigation has b.-!en completed during the last three years.
the accus ::d concerned should be released forthwith subject to reinvestigation
of the said cases on fresh facts and they shall not be arrested without the per-
mission of the Magistrate and where permission is given they would be
released by the Magistrate on execution of personal bund. [777H; 778A-B)
(5) Section 144 Cr. P.C. should not be misused and orders under this
Section should be passed in the light of principles laid down in 1983 \4) SCC
161 at page 169.
•
•
•
'
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 371-75
,,
of 1983.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Govind Mukhoty and Ms. Kamini Jaiswa/ for the petitioners.
·•
•
,
•
,
,
M:. AREEPARMt1t v. BJ!IAR (Faza/ Ali, J.)
L.N, Sinha, K.G. Bhagat, Addi. Sol. General, R. N. Poddar,
P.P. Singh and D. Goburdhan for Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. We have heard cousel for the parties at length
and have also gone through the Reports and. documents filed by
the petitioners. In view of the fact that the counsel for the
respondents are more or less agreed . to the order we propose to
pass, it is not necessary to go into further details.
The facts as gleaned from the. Reports and
documents
reveal a most shocking state of affairs in the region in question.
It seems that a very large number of people have been languishing
in jails without trial for
petty offences. Though most of the
said
people are alleged to have been released but the main
infirmity has not been cured. Without going into further details,
we dispose of the petitions in terms of the following Order :
u(l) In all cases instituted against the adivasi accused
concerned which involve sentence of 7 years or more,
they will be entitled to be released on consideration
of merit by the court concerned only on executing a
perso.oal bond. These cases will be disposed of on
merits expeditiously.
(2) In the other cases where trial has already started
A
B
D
E
and which do not come within the first category,
J.!
indicated above, the accused will be entitled to be
released on bail on. executing a personal bond in the
absence ~f very special circumstances.
(3) In the cases where no proceedings at all have taken
place in regard to the accused within 3 years from
the date of the lodging of FIR, the accused should
be released forthwith under section I69 Cr. P.C.
(4) If there are other cases in which neither chargesheet
have been submitted nor investigation has been
completed during the last three years, the accused
G
H
A
c
D
778
SUPkEMB COURT Ii.EPORTS
(i98S) l S.C.R
concerned should be released forthwith subject to
reinvestigation of the said case on fresh facts and
they shall not be arrested without the permission of
the Magistrate and where permission is given they
would be released by the Magistrate on execution of
personal bond.
We would like to observe that Section 144 Cr. P.C. should not be
misused and orders under this Section should be passed in the light
of principles laid down in 1983 (4) sec 161 at page 169.
At the same time, we would like to warn Adivasi accused
that they shoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.