SHAMSUDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.120/07 (originally numbered as S.T.258/96) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He was arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in that case on 9/2/07. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has now, subject to very strict conditions, directed his release on bail from custody.

(2.) But the petitioner continues in custody even now. There is no remand order from any court. Why then is he in custody? Report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was called for. The report reveals that the Sub Inspector of Police, who produced the petitioner after his arrest before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had reported that the petitioner was wanted in some other cases also and earlier warrants issued had been returned to such courts on the ground that the petitioner was not available for arrest. In these circumstances, even though the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in S.T.No.120/07, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed that the accused must be produced before the five different courts before which the cases against the petitioner are pending. The petitioner by now has been produced before the three such courts. Two of them - Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Palakkad and the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor, have already released the petitioner on bail. The third viz., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, when he was produced before that court, it was realised that he is not required to be detained in custody in connection with any such case. The petitioner was allegedly required for arrest by two more courts i.e., the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur in S.T.No.5362/05 and the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mysore in C.C.No.334/05.

(3.) The short grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been directed to be kept in custody by these two courts. There is no production warrant issued by such courts. Nay, there is not even a non-bailable warrant issued by such courts in favour of any of the officers. No such warrant is at all produced. In these circumstances, the detention of the petitioner without due authorisation from any court - either remand order or non-bailable warrant, is unjustified. This, in short, is the plea raised.