RAGHUBIR SINGH & OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 19-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAGHUBIR SINGH & OTIIERS ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1986 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND M.M. DU'IT, JJ.) 
Constitution of lndia, 1950. 
Arts.' 32. and 136--Petitions against framing of charges by the 
Trial Court-Whether maintainable-Supreme Court cannot convert 
itself into a trial court to consider sufficiency of evidence justifying 
framing of charges. 
Article 2/-Right to speedy trial-When violated-Factors to be 
taken in consideration-Question ultimately one of fairness in the ad-
ministration of criminal justice. 
Criminal Law Amendment Act, s. 6--Creation of Special Judge's 
Court-Justification of-Trial entrusted to Special Court in the interest 
E 
of security and convenience of the accused-Whether rule of law violated. 
F 
Indian Penal Code, ss. /20A & /24A-Accused need not be a 
participant throughout to constitute offence of conspiracy-Distribution 
and circulation of seditious material-Whether sufficient for constitut-
ing offence. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, ss. 167(2), 309(2), 437(5) and 
439(2)-0rder for release on bail-No limit within which bail bond 
may be executed-Order for release on bail effective until an order 
under s. 437(5) or 439(2) is made-Order not extinguished either by 
discharge of surety/by lapse of time/the filing of chargesheet/remand to 
G 
custody unders. 309(2). 
The petitioners-accused were arrested by the Security Police 
Patrol Party in the State of Bihar while attempting to cross Indo-Nepal 
border. One of them was identified Simranjit Singh Mann-a dismissed 
Police Officer who had gone underground after an order of detention 
H 
under the National Security Act was passed against him. As a result of 
802 
-
RAGHUBIR SINGH'· STATE OF BIHAR 
803 
the search, currency notes and a number of documents and other arti-
cles were seized from the petitioners. It is alleged that one of the accused 
also offered a bribe to the police officers. The police registered a first 
information report and commenced investigation. A chargesheet was 
filed on 11th December, 1985 before judicial Magistrate First Class 
against the live accused-petitioners for offences under ss. 121-A, 123, 
124-A, 153A, 165-A, 505 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, 
before the chargesheet was filed, the accused-petitioner; Simranjit 
Singh Mann was served with an order of detention under the National 
Security Act and sent to Bhagalpur jail. The other four accused were 
also detained under the National Security Act at Bhagalpur. 
All the petitioners moved the Judicial Magistrate for bail in the 
aforesaid criminal case claiming to be released under proviso (a) of s. 
167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were granted bail but, 
they could not be released because of their detention under the National 
Security Act. While so, the surety for all the live accused filed a petition 
requesting the Magistrate to discharge him from suretyship as he did 
not want to continue to be the surety of the accused persons. The Magis-
trate discharged the surety from suretyship and issued formal warrants 
of arrest under s. 444(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this 
stage, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made an order quashing 
the detention of Simranjit Singh Mann. 
The Magistrate took cognizance of the case under ss. 121A, 123, 
124A, 153A, 165A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on December 18, 
1985. Thereafter the investigating Officer filed a petition requesting 
expeditious trial as the case was one of special importance. All the 
petitioners except Simranjit Singh Mann filed fresh" ball bonds. The 
said bail bonds were rejected on December 20, 1985 as the surety could 
not name either the accused persons or their fathers. The accused 
moved another petition for recalling the order dated December 20, 1985 
·and accepting the same person as surety. This petition was rejected on 
the ground that the earlier order could not be reviewed. The High 
Court also rejected the bail applications of these accused persons. 
The case was thereafter, transferred to the Special Judge (Vigi-
lance) North Bihar, Patna. The accused Simranjit Singh Mann moved 
an application before the Special Judge offering cash security and ask-
. ing for bail but it was rejected on the ground that the High Court had 
already rejected the application of the other four accused. The case was 
later transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Bhagalpur and was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
804 

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