BUDDHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first bail application bearing No. 7687 of 1996 was rejected on 3-7-1996 on merits.

(2.) This is second bail application on the additional ground that the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, before whom Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1996 is pending, has not passed legal or proper remand order under Section 309, Cr. P.C.The learned counsel for the applicant relied on a Division Bench case of Lucknow Bench, Vashist Muni v. Superintendent, District Jail, Faizabad reported in 1993. Lucknow LJ 165. I considered the contention of the counsel for the applicant it is noticed that subsequently the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veerendra Singh v. Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad reported in 1995 JIC (sic) : (1995 All LJ 1542) considered the law regarding the remand orders enunciated in the case of Vashist Muni (supra) in the following words :

(3.) The precise question again came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lokendra v. State of U.P., 1995 JIC 61 wherein the case of Vashist Muni v. Superintendent, District Jail Faizabad, (1993 Lucknow LJ 165) was cited by the learned counsel for the accused and it was held that if any remand order has been passed under Section 209(b), Cr. P.C.remanding the accused to jail custody during and until the conclusion of the trial at the time of committing the case to the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge is not required to pass an order of remand during the course of the trial. The detention of the accused in jail custody during and until the conclusion of the trial cannot be said to be without authority of law. The relevant extract is reproduced below :