KOOMAR INDRANEEL ALIAS CAESAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This application by petitioners has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the petitioners from jail custody on the ground that their detention in violation of Sections 167, 208 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.) is void and illegal.

(2.) The admitted facts giving rise to this application are that Kadamkuan (Patrakarnagar) PS Case No. 628/98 under Sections 366-A/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) was registered on the basis of Fardbeyan of informant Reena Kumari aged about 14 years. In the Fardbeyan the informant alleged that on 30-9-98 at about 11 p.m. when she along with her parents was returning to her house after visiting Dashahara fair, a red Maruti car in the way stopped near her. The occupants of the car after opening its gate forcibly dragged her from road in the car. Her mother tried to rescue her but could not as the car moved with speed. Two occupants sitting on the back seat of the car tied the mouth of informant with her 'Odhani' and when she tried to raise alarm they threatened her that in case she raised alarm she would be shot dead. According to her, there were three persons in the car and out of them one was driving the car and two were sitting on the back seat of the car. She was taken to a house where all the three committed rape on her. During the course of rape they were giving threat to her that in case she raised alarm her mother would be brought and they would commit rape on her also. After commission of rape she was again taken in the car and left at a lonely place after again giving threat. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and the case was committed to the Court of Session where it is numbered as Sessions Trial No. 240/99 and is still pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Patna. It is also admitted that charges against the petitioners and one another co-accused have been framed on 26-6-2000. Although in the application a number of grounds have been taken such as, investigation was completed without any T. I. parade, charge-sheet was submitted without complying the procedure laid down under Section 9 of Evidence Act, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty at the conclusion of trial and, therefore, he is entitled to bail, copies of police papers were not supplied to petitioners before committing the case to the Court of Session etc. and some decisions in support of these grounds are mentioned but those are not relevant for the purpose of this application which has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the detention of petitioners in custody is illegal because after commitment of case to the Court of Session they are not being produced before the Court from jail custody.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that after commitment of a case to the Court of Session an accused is required to be produced after every fifteen days under Section 309, Cr. P.C. before the Court of Session and because the petitioners after their case was committed to the Court of Session were not produced as such before the Court of Session, their detention in jail custody is illegal and the petitioners are entitled to be released from the jail custody. I am unable to accept this submission. Part of Section 309, Cr. P.C. which is relevant for the purpose of present case reads as follows :