RAGHAV RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 188/2013 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, challenging the order of the 3rd respondent ordering transfer of the petitioner to the Central Prison, Jaipur, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 188/2013 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, registered suo-moto by the police, alleging offences under Section 419, 420, 471 and 201 of Indian penal Code and Section 66-D of Income Tax Act and Section 12(1)(b) of Indian Passport Act. The allegation of the police against the petitioner is that, petitioner who is an escaped prisoner while on parole, suppressed his real name and making impersonation and by fabricating false documents obtained a job in State Bank of Travancore, also obtained passport etc., and committed the above said offence. When it was brought to the notice of the police that, he is alleged to be the person, who escaped prison in, connection with S.C. No. 34/2006 of Additional Sessions Court, (Fast Track-I), Alwar of Rajasthan State, Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhayangadi police station arrested him and registered the crime. This is produced as Annexure-I. He was arrested on 08.03.2013 and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, and from then he is in judicial custody.

(3.) Though investigation was in progress, no final report has been filed, and the police could not get materials to substantiate their case. They also could not get materials that he is the accused in Sessions Case No. 34/2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Alwar of Rajasthan State, Since the investigation agency could not file the final report within 90 days, he filed criminal M.P. No. 5426/2013, seeking bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code and also filed Criminal M.P. No. 5427/2013, seeking permission to deposit the amount in lieu of execution of bond. Learned magistrate as per Annexure-AII order granted default bail under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, but dismissed Crl. M.P. No. 5427/2013 as per Annexure-III order. The petitioner challenged Annexure-III order and condition No. 1 in Annexure-II order by filing Crl. M.C. No. 5404/2013 before this court and this court by Annexure-IV order dated 02.12.2013 allowed the application and modified the condition in Annexure-AII order and quashed Annexure-AIII order. He had complied with the conditions imposed as per Annexure-IV order and the learned magistrate issued release order directing the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner from custody. The sealed cover was not handed over to the counsel for the petitioner, instead it was directed to be served on the 3rd respondent by the staff of the court. The staff of the court produced the order before the 3rd respondent on 04.12.2013 at about 8.00 p.m. but the 3rd respondent refused to release the petitioner from custody. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner was told by the 3rd respondent that, learned magistrate along with the release order issued a letter addressed to him and forwarded the communications issued by the jail authorities of Jaipur, and directed him to do the needful as per Annexure-V. It is on the basis of Annexure-V communication that the 3rd respondent refused to release the petitioner. The act of the 3rd respondent is illegal Once the court which remanded the petitioner had issued release order, the 3rd respondent has no authority to detain him, unless there is valid production warrant issued from a court, which requires the presence of the petitioner before that court. No such warrant is pending against the petitioner in this case. So according to him the action of the 3rd respondent is illegal. So he has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following relief: