RAM AKBAL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. In the present case the applicant Ram Akbal Pandey, has applied for bail in Crime No. 150 of 1991 under Sections 498-A/304-B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bhiti, district Faizabad. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the custody of the applicant is illegal as compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 of the Constitution of India has not been made in the present case. According to the learned counsel at the time of the arrest of the applicant the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of law and as such the arrest of the applicant has become illegal.

(2.) ON the other hand the learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the arrest of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal or in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it also does not violate the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the applicant was told the grounds of his arrest at the time when the arrest was made. According to him it is not necessary that every detail of the offence disclosed to the applicant at the time of his arrest should have been mentioned in the General Diary of arrest but a mere mention in the General Diary that the grounds of arrest have been disclosed to the applicant is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20 of the Constitutian of India. According to him the grounds of arrest even if they were not told at the beginning could have been told to him later on because it is not the requirement of any provision of law that the grounds should be told immediately at the time of the arrest of the person. He has further argued that the bail is not the remedy in such a case and the applicant can be set at liberty only a writ petition of habeas corpus.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the bail can be granted in cases of illegal detention also. He has placed reliance on the case of Sayeed Ahmad v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 541. That was, as a matter of fact, third application for bail which was moved on behalf of the accused. In that case there was a defect in the order of remand to jail. In that case it was contended that at no stage of the case any legal warrant was issued authorising the detention of applicant in jail and, consequently, the applicant was entitled to bail. After dealing with the facts of that case the Court granted bail and directed the lower court to release the applicant on bail. Therefore this case is an authority for the present case that the High Court has power to grant bail in a case where there is illegal detention.