ASHOK Vs. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK and Ram Gopal, the petitioners, are standing their trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Penal Code. After the first information report was lodged. the petitioners were arrested and sent to jail. Their application for being enlarged on bail was rejected by this Court with a direction that it will be open to them to apply for bail if the case against the petitioners was not decided by 15.3.1982 for no fault of the petitioners. On 28.8.1981 the case was committed to the Court of Session and on 4.12.1981 the Sessions Judge transferred the case to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi. A copy of this order is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. On 15.12.1981, the Ist Additional Sessions Judge directed that the accused be produced before the Court on 1.2.1982. The order is Annexure -3 to the Writ petition. On 1.2.1982 accused were produced before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge and then they were ordered to be produced on 3.3.1982. A true copy of the order is Annexure -4 to the writ petition. It may be noted that up to this stage there was no direction given by the Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioners be kept in jail. On 24th and 25th March, 1982 the Sessions Judge directed that the petitioners shall stay in jail.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments it has been conceded that the petitioners were validly detained under an order of remand. The contention is that between the period 28.8.1981 and 24.3.1982 the detention of the petitioners was illegal as they were detained in jail without any order of remand. It is further contended that even if the petitioners' detention at the moment is legal even so they are entitled to be released on the ground of illegality in the detention order. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Ram Swarup v. State of U.P. (1980 Luck LJ 24). In our opinion reliance upon this decision appears to be misplaced. The reported case deals with a case under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. No charge -sheet was submitted against the applicant in the reported case within a period of 90 days. In this respect Mahavir Singh, J. observed as follows : -

(3.) THE petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.