MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 4-2-94 passed by Sri J.P. Srivastava, Special Judge (D.A.A.) Jhansi whereby the application for his release in crime No. 12 of 1994 under Sections 395/412 IPC relating to police station Raksa, district Jhansi has been rejected.

(2.) Applicant Manoj Kumar Agrawal was arrested on 2-2-94 at 2.00 P.M. in Kanpur while co-accused Prakash was arrested at 5.20 P.M. on the same day. They were brought to police station Raksa at 10.00 A.M. on 3-2-94 but were produced before the Magistrate on 4-2-94 at 3.00 P.M. The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant was that the applicant and co-accused Prakash were produced before the Magistrate after 49 and 46 hours, respectively, of their arrest and, therefore, their detention being for more than 24 hours was illegal and in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution as well as Sections 57 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, they rightly claimed release but by the impugned order their fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution has been denied. From the order impugned in the present revision it appears that they were taken from one place to another in connection with the investigation to recover certain looted property. In support of the above submission, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Avadh Bihari Rai v. State of U.P. 1989 All Cri C 593 (LB), a learned Single Judge case in Sudhakar alias Chunna v. State of U.P., reported in 1985 All Cri C 105: (1984 All LJ 1183) and a judgment in Criminal Revision No. 1891 of 1993 (Rajesh Misra v. State of U.P.) decided on 20-1-94.

(3.) Now the question that arises for determination is as to what remedy is available in the cases where the accused claims release due to illegal detention or custody on the basis of illegal remand orders of production before the Magistrate after 24 hours of his arrest as contemplated under Section 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sub-article (2) of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India.