DURGALAL VIJAY Vs. GOVT OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging his unlawful detention and for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him by respondent No. 2. Petitioner has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. one lac.

(2.) PETITIONER has submitted that he alongwith his wife and two sons had purchased separate pieces of land which were adjacent to each other in Gandhi Chowk, Sheopur Kalan, through registered deed of sale. Thereafter, construction was made on the aforesaid plots in the year 1984-85, On 27-1-1997 respondent No. 3 Shri M. K. Agrawal was posted as Additional Collector at Sheopur Kalan, which was at that time part of District Morena. Respondent No. 2 S. K. Sharma was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and respondent No. 4 was Town Inspector of Sheopur Kalan. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 had come to the spot and manhandled him which caused injuries to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the Police Station, Sheopur Kalan by respondents 2 to 4 and was detained in illegal custody. According to the petitioner, a report was lodged by Shri M. K. Agrawal at the Police Station, Sheopur Kalan that he was manhandled and beaten by the petitioner. On the report, a case for the offences under Sections 333,353, 506-B and 294, IPC was registered against the petitioner. Through there was no charge that Shri M. K. Agrawal has received grievous injuries, yet offences under Sections 333 and 506-B were registered against the petitioner with an intention to detain him in custody. Petitioner was arrested on 27-1-1997 in the evening at about 6. 00 O'clock. His application for bail was allowed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28-1-1997 vide order Annexure P-1. Petitioner furnished the bail. Petitioner submitted that instead of releasing him on bail after furnishing the bail, he was not released till 30-1-1997 and was detained in illegal custody and for detaining him in illegal custody, his arrest was shown under Section 151, Cr. P. C.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner was arrested for substantive offence on 27-1-1997 vide Sanha No. 1325 at the Police Station, then he could not be arrested for the offence under Section 151, Cr. P. C. at 6. 40 p. m. Once the petitioner was arrested for the substantive offence, there was no occasion to detain him under Section 151, Cr. P. C. Petitioner then moved an application for bail before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has written 'rejected' on the application itself and he also wrote an order-sheet in detail rejecting the bail application. The order-sheet was signed by Shri R. R. Singh and Shri Sakil Qureshi, Advocates who had moved the bail application on behalf of the petitioner. After rejection of the application, the petitioner was sent to judicial lock-up. Certified copy of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not supplied to the petitioner in spite of the application. Petitioner then filed a revision on 28-1-1997 itself against the said order of rejection before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur Kalan, alleging therein that certified copy of the order is not being supplied. However, when the records reached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, it was noticed by the petitioner that order-sheet rejecting the bail application has been substituted by another order-sheet wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- but since the security was not furnished by the petitioner he was sent to jail. Petitioner submitted that he being a leading lawyer of the town and possessing lot of immoveable properties, there was no reason why he should refuse to furnish bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision directed release of the petitioner on furnishing bail of Rs. 1000/- only. In compliance of the bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not send the release order on 29-1-1997 and instead sent the Parwana to jail after 9. 00 p. m. This was done intentionally so that the petitioner may not be released on 29-1-1997 and could continue to remain under detention till 30-1-1997.