SHAIK MAHBOOB Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused in S.C. No.55 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and has been facing the trial in the said case. He has been attending that Court in connection with the trial. In the meanwhile, a crime has been registered against him in Cr.No.294/2003 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. by Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, on 7.8.2003. He was arrested on 12.8.2003 in connection with the said crime and remanded to judicial custody on 13.8.2003. Thus, since then he has been in judicial custody in connection with the said crime. On 20.10.2003 when Sessions Case No.55 of 1998 was called and inasmuch as the petitioner was not present as he was in judicial custody by then, the learned Sessions Judge directed a P.T. warrant to be issued against the petitioner for his production. He was produced before the Court on 7-11-2003 and when that case stood adjourned on that day, the Court directed him to be remanded till 20-11-2003 on which date, the case stands posted for the purpose of fixing the schedule.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.294/2003. Thinking that it requires an application seeking bail to be applied, the petitioner filed an application seeking bail before the Sessions Court. On the ground that the petitioner involved himself in another crime, that Court dismissed the application filed by him. Even the application filed by him before this Court ended in dismissal on the same ground. The fact remains that the petitioner has been granted bail in both the cases. His remand to judicial custody when he was produced before the Court pursuant to the production warrant is not a regular remand as envisaged either under Section 167 or under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In ordinary course when the case stood adjourned, the petitioner would have been sent back to the jail from where he was directed to be produced under the warrant issued by the Court. It is not a case of fresh remand either in the connection with the Sessions Case or in connection with the crime pending investigation. Without realising the same, he has been committed to custody again. That order, therefore, is quite illegal and legally not sustainable. The involvement of the petitioner in the second case perhaps may be a ground for investigating agency to file the necessary application seeking cancellation of the bail granted earlier in his favour. No such step has been taken by the prosecution. When the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in both the cases, his detention any more becomes illegal and it is not a case where a fresh bail application has to be filed and granted. Therefore, the order now being impugned shall have to be quashed.

(3.) The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly and the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.