LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADEISH versus ABDUL SAMAD & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
a s.c.R.
suPREME couRT R:Eroitrs
!Ji5
STATE OF UTTAR PRADEISH
ABDUL SAMAD & ANOTHER.
(B. P. srnHA, c. J., K. suBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L.
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Habeas Corpus-Arrest and detention for de1Jortalion-
Petition for haheas corpus-Police holding detenues for produc-
tion before High Court-Non-1iroduction before Magistrate-
Production before High Court and grant of bail-Detention, if
illegal-Con•titution of India Art. 2 2( 2).
In pursuance of an order for their deportatio11 the res-
pondents were arrested on July 21, and sent to Amritsar.
The next day a habeas corpus application was filed on their
behalf before the High Court at Lucknow and they were
ordered to be produced on July 25, but on the High 'Court
being informed that
the respondents were beyond its
jurisdiction it directed the
application to be consigned
to the records.
On spurious information being
received
at Amritsar that the respondents had to be produced
before the High Court the respondents were sent back
to Lucknow which they reached at 1 P.M. on July 25.
They
were produced before the Deputy Registrar at 3 P. M. and
he directed them to be produced at I0.15 A.M. on 'the next
day. In the mean time a second habeas corpus application was
filed on behalf of the respondents, inter a1ia, on the ground
that the detention of the respondents was in violation of Art.22
of the Constitution as they had not been produced before any
Magistrate. The respondents were produce¢ before the High
Court at 10.30 A.M. on July 26, when the High Court ad-
journed the case till 2 P.M. onJuly
0 27, and directed the pro-
duction of the respondents at the time of hearing. On July 27,
· the High Court ordered the release of t~e respondents on bail
and adjourned the case till July 28. On July 28, the High
Court allowed the application and directed the · respon-
dents to be
released on the ground of a contravention of
Art. 22(2). It did not consider the legality of the detention
in the first stage, i.e. from July 21 to 1 p.m. on July 25, but
·held that the detention in the second stage was illegal as the
respondents were not produced before a Magistrate within
24 hours of l P.M. of July 25.
Held, (per Sinha, C.J., Ayyangar, Mudholkar and'Aiyar,
- J.J., Subba Rao, J., dissenting), that the detention of the
196:!
March16.
19G2
Stales of Uttar
I'rarksh
v.
A /.c}ul Sa11uJcl
!)Hi SUPREME OOUitT HEPORTS [1002] SUPP.
respondents was lei;al and the High Cou1 t '''a=> , .. ·1ong in orUer·
ing their relcast'..
·rhc rcsponrlc:nts \\'Crc produced before the
High Court on .July 26, within 2+ hours of their airival at
Luckno\v and the l·ligh C0urt by ordcrini.;· their production the
. next day permitted the rr:spondcnts to rc~n1ain in police custody.
'I hey were again ·produced before the 1-Iigh (;ourt within the
next 24 hours on July 2i, \Vhr:n they \Vere ordered cu be
rrleased on bail.
"fhus at no tin1e during the sccund sragc
wuld the respondents be said to have been 11legally detainer!
for 1nore than 24 hours \Vithout production before a j udical
authority in violation of Art. 22(2).
Per Subba Rao, J. The detention of the respondents
\Vas illegal.
The detention could no! b: dissected into t\\'O
stages; it ,.,,.as a continuous one.
Arrest an<l detention for
purposes of deportation was subject
to
t ~e provisions of
Art.22(2) and the 1espondents
not i1aving been produced
lieforc a ~11fal{istr<itc \\o·ithin 24 liours of their arrest the delc11-
tion ~\'as illegal.
Collector of Ma/,af,ar v. },"/17ohim llajee, (19:i7) S.C.R. ~70
and State of l'unjab v. Ajaib Sinyh, (1953) S.C.R. 254,
distinb>'Uishj .
CRIMJNAL APPELLATE .JuHJ~!JfCTlOl'i : Criminal·
Appeal !\o. 48 of UHll.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated July ·28, I fHiO, of the Allahabad
High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Cr.
:\iisc. rase :No. 186 of IU60.
G. C. ,Jfot/mr and C. /'. Lal, for the appellant.
S. P. Siiiha and JJJ. I. JOmuj11, for the res-
pondents.
19(i2. March !ti. The ,Judgment of Sinha.,
C. ,J., Ayyangar, 7lludholk1;r and Aiyar, ,J,J., was
delivered by Ayyangar, J., Subba Rao, J., d1•livcrPd
a separate Judgment.
AYYA:SGAR, J.- This is an appeal by special
lcaYc against the judgment and orcl!'r of the High
Court of Allahabad by l\·hich it allowed a petif.ion
under, s. ,l!)l of the Criminal Proc<'<lure Code filed
on behalf of the rcspondrnts.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.