RAJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr dated 10-6-1994 and 22-6-1994 remanding the revisionist Rajpal Singh to jail custody. The allegation is that no legal order was passed remanding the applicant in jail custody and the detention being illegal he should be released on bail. From annexure it appears that the case was yet to be committed to the court of sessions so the remand must have been made under Section 209, Cr. P. C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisi nist was sent to jail on both occasions without a proper order of remand. It might be that custody warrant was signed by the learned Magistrate but the same was not considered sufficient in view of several decisions of the High Court. He has referred the case of Rajesh Misra v. Stata of U. P. , 1994 (31) ACC page 197: 1994 JIC 305. From that decision I find that there are divergent views over the legality of sending the accused in jail custody without proper order of remand and ultimately the matter has been referred to larger bench for a decision on that point. But the law as it stands now after the decision of Madhu Limaye and case, AIR 1969 SC 1014, is that the accused cannot be sent to jail without a remand order and it must be passed applying the mind of the court and must not be a routine and mechanical in nature. By order dated 10- 6-1994 the learned Magistrate sent the accused to jail till 23-6-1994 on 22-6-1994 he was summoned to be produced in the court and the learned Magistrate ordered that the accused be presented in the court on 5-7-1994. The revisionist has also annexed certified copy of the order dated 5-7-1994 wherefrom it appears that the learned Magistrate ordered that the accused be presented from jail remand on 19-7- 1994. After going through the order-sheet, I do not find that the requirements of Section 209, Cr. P. C. as amended under the U. P. Amendment Act has been complied with in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as laid down in Madhu Limaye case (supra ). Consequently, I must hold that the detention of the revisionist was not proper and hence the accused is entitled to be released on bail.