DHARAM PAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malviya, J. Heard Sri Prem Prakash learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri S. N. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the state.

(2.) THE grievence of the applicant is that although he is confined in District Jail Sultanpur, the Courts at Bulandshahr are not interfering his bail application on the ground that the applicant accused was not in custody of that Courts. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the applicant has filed the photostat copy of the certified copy of the order dated 17. 9. 91 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahr in Crime No. 249/91. Sikanderabad under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 436 I. P. C. as also the copy of the order dated 18. 9. 91 passed by the Addl. C. J. M. Khurja, in Crime No. 75/91, P. S. Khurja Dehat under Section 364 I. P. C. It is further alleged that similar orders were passed by other Courts of Bulandshahr which have also been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY it is directed that in the event of the certificate from the jail being produced by the applicant before the courts concerned as is mentioned above, the courts shall treat the applicant to be in custody and thereafter consider his bail application in accordance with law.