LALJI YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was initially filed by four persons, namely, Lalji Yadav, Shahabuddin, Ataur Rahman urf Babu and Imtiaz Ahmad, who were allegedly involved in case crime No. 19 of 1997 under Section 364-A/120-B/302/34 I.P.C. police station Bhelupra, Varanasi, challenging the order dated 30/08/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi by which the bail application of the applicants was rejected on the ground that they were not in custody of that court. It may be mentioned here that the application of one Mukhtar Ansari was also considered along with the bail application of these persons and the accused were detained in Ghazipur Jail in connection with some other offence.

(2.) On 8-9-97 an application was moved on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari son of Subhanullah Ansari for being him impleaded as petitioner No. 5 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5537 of 1997. Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D. V. Singh appeared on behalf of Mukhatar Ansari and Stated that the applicants Lalji Yadav and others have no objection if Mukhtar Ansari is impleaded as petitioner No. 3, with them and he was appearing on behalf of those applicants as well as on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari applicant also. In view of this development, the application was allowed and Mukhtar Ansari was permitted to be impleaded as petitioner No. 5.

(3.) Another application was filed on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari to the effect that he be treated to be in custody in the aforesaid case crime No. 19 of 1997 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur be directed to grant the remand during the pendency of the investigation under Section 167 Cr. P.C. It was orally prayed that the execution of 'B' warrant be stayed against him. This Court heard the matter and passed a detailed order on 9-9-1997 in which it was provided that if the accused applicant Mukhtar Ansari was required to be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, adequate security arrangements should be provided to him and the applicant shall be sent by the Jail authorities under the protection of a force other than the local police in case the order was produced before the jail authorities by 10.00 A.M. the next day. It was left open for the parties concerned to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi about the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1932 of 1997 Shrimati Shanti Rungata v. State of U. P. dated 3-9-1997 as well as the facts stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. and if the court concerned considered that it was necessary to take the applicants into custody, it was free to pass appropriate orders.