LAWS(KAR)-1951-9-1

D M REVANASIDDAIAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

Decided On September 10, 1951
D.M.REVANASIDDAIAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. He has stated in his affidavit that he was arrested by the Police of Davangere, apparently in connection with some criminal case, on 22-1-51 and remanded to Police custody. He was granted bail by the First Class Magistrate who later on cancelled it on the application of the Public Prosecutor. He was then committed and took his trial before the Sessions Judge, Shimoga Division, in Chitaldrug Sessions Case No. 8/50-51. The Sessions Judge released him on bail on 24-2-51, and on 25-2-51 he was rearrested by the Police of Davangere. He was ultimately acquitted in the Sessions case on 8-3-51. He was served on 8-3-51 with a copy of an order of detention dated 5-3-51 together with grounds of detention and, subsequently, on 12-3-51 with the details of grounds for detention.

(2.) The order of detention which is dated 5-3-51 is as follows: --

(3.) For the State, the District Magistrate, Chitaldrug, has sworn to an affidavit dated 21-8-51 accompanied by another affidavit by the Police Inspector of Davangere Taluk. In the latter it is stated that the Petitioner was arrested by the Harihar Police and not by the Davangere Police, on 23-1-1951 and not on 22-1-1951, that the cancellation of bail was ordered on 8-2-51 and not on 7-2- 51 and that the release on bail by the Sessions Judge was on 23-2-51 and not on 24-2-51. In that affidavit, it is also stated that the Davangere Taluk Police arrested the Petitioner on 24-2-51 in connection with the investigation of an offence of dacoity but he was released for want of sufficient evidence on the forenoon of 7-3-51 and after he was released he was served with a detention order on the same date by the Davangere City Police, that it is not true that the Petitioner does not know why he was arrested on 24-2-51 and that the reasons for his arrest were fully explained and communicated to him.