SEHHADAT KHAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sehhadat Khan was arrested on 31 -1 -63 at about 7 -30 A.M. by the S. I. of Police of the Security Unit at the Agartala Airport suspecting him to be a foreigner without a Passport and Visa. Then he was searched and Rupees 1,431 in cash and 4 gold Tabijes weighing 7 tolas and odd were found on his person. He appears to have given different addresses and also mentioned different persons as the owners of the gold ornaments. Thus as the Police Officer found that the petitioner could not give a satisfactory account of the articles and suspected them to be stolen, he seized the articles. There were also various other articles like wearing apparel, fountain pen, knife, plane ticket and other papers as seen in the seizure list. The petitioner was produced with the seized articles before the O/C Kotwali Police station with a report that the petitioner was detected as a stranger and was strongly suspected to be connected with a cognizable offence.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that on 15 -2 -63 the Police did not file the report called for by the magistrate and still the magistrate has further remanded the petitioner to jail custody and even till this date the Police have not filed the report before the Magistrate. To my question to the learned Government Advocate whether any evidence has Seen collected so far to raise a suspicion that the petitioner may have committed an offence, he replied that as the petitioner mentioned that he belonged to Karimganj in Assam, letters have been written to the Police at Karimganj for information but that no reply has been received so far from Karimganj in spite of reminders. Thus the petitioner who was arrested under Section 54 Cr. P. C. on suspicion continues in jail custody, even though no attempt has been made by the Police so far in the course of investigation to secure any evidence against him excepting writing letters to the Kariiu, ganj Police.

(3.) HOWEVER , there may not be any serious objection to the first remand on 1 -2 -03. But the Magistrate directed the Police to submit a report by 6 -2 -63 evidently as he was not satisfied regarding the necessity for a long remand. When the Police disobeyed the direction of the magistrate and did not submit any report and did not give any reasons for their failure to submit the report, there was no reason for further remand, and the Magistrate should never have made an order for the further detention of the arrested person. The further order of detention passed on 6 -2 -63 was, therefore, clearly wrong. It is such orders by a Magistrate that make the Police disregard the directions of the Court and make them feel that they can take their own time for Investigation.