SEVI TAO Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order, dated 02.09.2011, passed in this bail application is self-explicit and, in order to enable one to clearly understand the catalogue of events leading to this order and the gravity of the situation, let me reproduce the order hereinbelow:

(2.) IN terms of the directions, which had been issued on 02.09.2011, the Chief Secretary of the State, the Director General of Police of the State and the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur, appeared, in this bail application, on 28.09.2011, and, upon hearing Mr. B.N. Balagopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused, the said officers were directed to file their affidavits. They have accordingly filed their affidavits and the petitioner has filed his counter thereto. The affidavits have been carefully perused in the light of the accused- petitioner's response thereto.

(3.) THE idea behind dealing with the above aspect of the order by the said three officers is clearly to show that it is the accused, who had made false accusations by claiming that though his date of arrest was 06.01.2011, his judicial remand was as late as on 22.01.2011 intending to indicate thereby as if he (accused) was in police custody between 07.01.2011 and 22.01.2011 without being produced before the Magistrate at all. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that though unusual and may be rare in some Slates, which are governed by an effective machinery of law, the case at hand clearly suffered from lack of information inasmuch as the accused, as would be noticed from the order, dated 02.09.2011, which has been reproduced above, was handicapped in making all requisite information, orders and materials available to his counsel and whatever were available, on record, reflected as if the accused, having been arrested on 06.01.2011, was produced, for the first time, in the Judicial Magistrate's Court as late as on 22.01.2011. THE correct state of affairs, as discernible from the three affidavits aforementioned and the case record, is that the accused was arrested and taken into custody on 06.01.2011; he was produced before the Magistrate on 07.01.2011 and was remanded to police custody for a period of one week with effect from 07.01.2011. In course of time, a further remand of 7 days was granted by the Magistrate on 15.01.2011, when the police requested for second remand of the accused to their custody. Thus, after the two police remands were completed on 22.01.2011, the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and was sent to judicial custody. Because the accused was given into police custody for as many as 15 days, this Court deemed it proper to peruse the case diary thoroughly in this regard.