SHRAWAN WAMAN NADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants alongwith some others came to be arrested in Crime No. 45 of 1993 registered at Police Station Hingna under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering one Rajesh and causing serious injuries to one Bahadur on 1-2-1993. A report in that respect came to be made to the Police Station Officer on 1-2-1993 at about 11. 15 p. m. The applicants came to be arrested on 1-3-1993 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Nagpur on 2-3-1993. The prosecution sought police remand. The said application was signed by one K. G. Patil as Investigating Officer and it came to be granted upto 6th March, 1993. Another application came to be submitted on 6th March, 1993 signed by P. S. O. , Police Station Hingna before the learned J. M. F. C. , 10th Court, Nagpur, seeking magisterial custody remand. The learned Magistrate granted M. C. R. upto 20th March, 1993. Again on 20th March, 1993, another application came to be filed for extension of the said remand. The said application was signed by police constable attached to the said Court. The learned Magistrate extended the said remand upto 5-4-1993. On the very day i. e. 20th March, 1993, the applicants filed an application praying for releasing them on bail. In the said application it was contended that the application filed by the prosecuting agency was highly improper; it was not submitted by the Investigating Officer and it has been filed by the police constable, who was not authorised to do it. Further it was submitted without furnishing the extracts of the case diary of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. It was also pointed out that the reason given in the application that some accused were absconding and they are to be arrested is not a proper cause. It was contended that the application for remand was illegal and should be rejected and bail granted. The learned A. P. P. filed a reply and contended that the investigation is incomplete and, therefore, detention of the applicants is necessary and was a sufficient reason for extending the remand. It was also pointed out that the order for remand has already been passed and the applicants can challenge the same before the higher Court and the application as filed by the applicants is not tenable and liable to be rejected. It is clear from this reply that there is no denial of the fact that the Investigating Officer has not forwarded the extracts of the case diary regarding investigation of the offence to the learned Magistrate when the application for extension of remand was made.

(2.) THE learned J. M. F. C. , 10th Court, Nagpur, rejected the application filed by the applicants, inter alia observing that the investigation was in progress and the applicants were required to be detained for completing the investigation and finding out the whereabouts of the absconding accused. We, therefore, held that the applicants are not entitled to claim any bail and rejected the applicaton. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate is challenged in this revision application filed on 27-4-1993.

(3.) A few subsequent facts are required to be noted. Further application came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution on 5-4-1993 praying for extension of M. C. R. The same was again signed by the police constable attached to the Court and it came to be granted by the learned Magistrate till 19-4-1993. Again on 19-4-1993, another application was filed for further extension of M. C. R. and it came to be extended till 3-5-1993. Charge-sheet came to be filed within 90 days of the date on which the applicants were produced before the learned Magistrate for remand.