LexSAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER versus JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 909
SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER
V.
JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR.
{Writ Petition (Crl.) No.147 of 2013)
JULY 22, 2014
[T.S. THAKUR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.)
Writs - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Detention - Legality -
Whether the petitioner could be said to be in illegal custody
A
B
so as to warrant the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus - Held: C
On facts, No - Petitioner was involved in a criminal case for
which he was arrested and produced before the Judicial
Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody by virtue of an
order passed by the Judicial Magistrate - There was no illegal
detention - However, petitioner at liberty to file application for D
his release in the criminal case pending before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 32.
The petitioner, who was in Koneila Jail, Dalsingsarai,
District Samastipur {Bihar), prayed for grant of a writ of E
habeas corpus u/Art. 32 read with Art.14, 21 & 22 of the
Constitution directing the respondents to produce the
petitioner before the Supreme Court and also to direct the
respondent-State to devise a way to prevent malicious
arrest and detention by the police that too without
maintaining necessary record and further to direct the
F
State to pay the petitioner compensation considering that
the detention was a black mark to his career prospects
and future. The petitioner stated that there was no
complaint against him and that he was unnecessarily and
illegally detained by the police.
G
Per contra, the respondents contended that the
petitioner was an accused in a criminal case registered
909
I-
91 O
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 386
of IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act and after such
registration he was arrested and produced before the
Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District
Samastipur, Bihar and then he was detained in judicial
9
custody.
c
The question which therefore arose for consideration
before this Court was whether the petitioner could be said
to be in illegal custody so as to warrant the issue of a writ
of Habeas Corpus.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
Per Ramana, J.
HELD:1.1. From the material on record, it is evident
D that there are series of cases pertaining to land disputes
between the family of the alleged detenu and other
villagers. Civil cases were filed initially. During the
pendency of a Suit, the father and mother of the petitioner
filed a Writ Petition No. 197 ·of 2012 before this Court. In
E the said Writ Petition, this Court has passed various
orders. A mortgage Suit No. 13/94 was also filed in which
a decree was obtained against the grandfather of the
petitioner and thereafter the grandfather of the petitioner
Banwari Roy has also filed a civil Title Suit bearing T.A.
F
No. 17/99 which was dismissed by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge-I, Samastipur on 1.6.2013., taking
into consideration the orders passed by this Court. After
obtaining decree in the Suit for delivery of possession
Rama Kant Singh has filed Execution proceedings on
G which the Munsif has ordered for police force for the
delivery of possession which was executed on 3.3.2013
and thereafter again an incident had taken place on
1.5.2013. A complaint was given by one Mohan Kumar
which was registered as FIR P.S. No. 72/13 under
H different Sections of the IPC and under Section 27 of the
SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER v.
911
JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL
Arms Act. At that point of time, the petitioner was A
produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Then the Magistrate after examining him, directed to send
him to jail by order dated 1.7.2013 (annexure R.6/3)
[Paras 10, 11 and 12] [916~0; 917-D-E-H]
1.2. It is thus clear from the narration of facts that the 8
petitioner is in judicial custody by virtue of an order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The same is further
ensured from the Original Record which this Court has,
by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the Court
of Additional ~hief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, C
District Samastipur, Bihar. Hence, the contention of the
counsel for the petitioner that there was illegal detention
without any case is incorrect. Therefore, the relief sought
for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the
petitioner is at liberty to make an application for his D
release in Criminal Case No. 129/13 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.