RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 4 6-1981. The ground taken in this second bail application is that after the commitment of the applicant to the Court of Session by the Magistrate, there was no valid order passed by the Sessions Judge remanding the applicant to custody. Record of the Court below and the custody warrant of the applicant were summoned. They have been perused in presence of the parties counsel. On 27-11-1981 the learned State Counsel said that on 30-10-1981, the applicant was remanded to custody upto 30-1 -1981 by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Record shows that on 15-10-1981 the Magistrate committed the appli cant to the Court of Session and directed that the applicant be pro duced before the Sessions Judge on 30-10-1981. At the time of commit ment, the Magistrate remanded the applicant to custody upto 30-10-1981 only and not upto the end of the Sessions trial. The custody warrant prepared in the Court of the Com mitting Magistrate clearly shows that on 15-10-1981 the Magistrate remand ed the applicant to custody upto 30-10-1981. At the end of the last entry there is a writing in red ink to the effect that the applicant was com mitted on 15-10-1981. On this custody warrant there is no entry made by the Sessions Judge. The order-sheet of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad shows that the letter of commitment was received on 29-10-1981. Then on 30-10-1981 the case was taken up. The accused persons who were on bail were present. The applicant Ram Kumar who was in jail was not before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge directed that the case be put up on 30-11-1981 for framing charge. The Sessions Judge did not pass an order that Ram Kumar is remanded to custody upto 30-11-1981. There is a letter dated 20-11-1981 written by Sri M. B. Verma. Senior Prosecuting Officer to the Superinten dent Jail Naini requesting him to supply him with a certified copy of the custody warrant prepared under the orders of the Judicial Magistrate by 21-11-1981. On the back of this letter two dates 30-11-1981 and 9-12-1981 are written. Against these dates there is some initials. I presume that these initials are of Sri S. D. N. Singh, Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Mere giving of dates does not amount to remanding an accused to jail custody. While remanding an accused to jail custody, the Judge should direct specifically the Superintendent of Jail to keep the accused in custody, in fact there is a form of custody warrant. The Sessions Judge neither used that form nor directed the Superintendent Jail, Naini in writing to keep the accused applicant in his custody. He has in a mechanical manner initialed against two dates JO-ll-1981 and 9-12-1981 written on the back of the letter of Sri M. B. Verma, Senior Prosecuting Officer dated 20-11-1981. It appears that the applicant want ed to show the Sessions Judge that he had not been legally committed to jail. By order dated 9-11-1981 the Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's prayer for bail with the direction that he should move this Court in the matter. Taking into consideration the facts appearing from the record, it is patent that the Sessions Judge did not remand the applicant to custody by any order whatsoever on any date after the commitment of the applicant to the Court of Session. In this way the applicant is in jail without any legal order passed by the Sessions Judge. It is strange that the Super intendent Jail is keeping him without a proper legal custody warrant. In the above circumstances the application is allowed and the appli cant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. .