SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant filed an application for bail on 26/8/1983 under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code. It is stated in the application that a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 31/1/1983 under Sections 302/1491148/147 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Munsif Magistrate III, Haldwani. The case of the applicant was committed to the Court of Sessions on 26-2-1983 under Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code and on the same day a warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate in which it was mentioned that the applicant be produced before, the Court of Sessions on 103.1983. In the aforesaid warrant it was not mentioned that the applicant was remanded to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial.

(2.) It is mentioned in the order sheet of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital that on 1/3/1983 the committal order dated 26/2/1983 was received from the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate Haldwani along with the calender and the record of the case against the applicant and it was ordered that the case be registered and the file be put up for fixing the date of hearing in the near future. The case was again put up for orders on 16/4/1983, 19/4/1983 and 17/5/1983 but no custody warrant was issued against the applicant directing his detention in jail during this period. It was on 14/6/1983 that for the first time a custody warrant under section 309(2) Criminal Procedure Code was issuedT by the learned Judge for detaining the applicant in custody till 27.6.1983 and for his production before the Court on that date. Subsequently on the same custody warrant orders were passed by the learned Judge on 27.6.1983, 23.7.1983, 25.7.1983, 22.8.1983 and 23.8.1983 directing the production of the applicant in court on subsequent dates of hearing.

(3.) It is clear from the above mentioned facts that no custody warrant was issued for the detention of the applicant in jail under section 309(2) Criminal Procedure Code between 10.3.1983 and 14.6.1983. It, therefore, follows that the detention of the applicant in jail during this period was illegal and unlawful.