SUNDER LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Sunder Lal moved an application in this court for being released on bail. The sole question on which the learned counsel pressed the application was that the detention of the applicant in jail after commitment was ille ­gal as at the time of commitment the war ­rant issued for purposes of detention of the applicant was for an indefinite period and rendered the detention of the applicant ille ­gal. The learned Single Judge after consi ­dering the various authorities and the law interpreted in Rajendra Gosain v. Supdt. District Jail, Banda and another 198I Cr.LJ. 802, was of the view that Rajendra Gosain's case re ­quired reconsideration. He then referred this case for decision by a Full Bench. The learned Single Judge in order to avoid delay and expedite the disposal of the bail appli ­cation referral the whole case for considera ­tion by the Bench.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that a report was lodged by one Sant Ram on May 13, 1981 at 6.45 a.m. against five persons including the applicant Sunder Lal. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated March 8, 1982 'committed the applicant along with others to the Sessions Judge, Lucknow for trial under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. as these offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned that the ap ­plicant was in jail at the time the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. He also mentioned that his order be notified to the Public Prosecutor, Lucknow. In the order it was also mentioned that the custody of Sunder Lal, who was in Jail, be handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail, during and till the disposal of the case before the Sessions Judge where no would be produced by the Superintendent, District Jail, as and when ordered.

(3.) ON the back of the warrant the following entry exists: -