CHHOTAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Chhotai Singh has prayed for inclusion of his detention from 22.4.1994 to 27.04.2000 during course of which he as claimed happens to be under custody in connection with Sikta P.S. Case No.113 of 1993 to be included and set off as per Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., while counting with period of detention in connection with Betiah P.S. Case No.4 of 1994 arising out of Sessions Trial No.221 of 1995 wherein he has been convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 22.7.2003 under Section 364A, 120B of the I.P.C. by the Vth Additional District & Sessions, Bettiah, West Champaran.

(2.) The State had repelled the prayer by filing counter affidavit.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that there happens to be an allegation put in Betiah P.S. Case No.4 of 1994 to the effect even during course of judicial custody, he conspired along with other co-accused in getting the victim Awadhesh Kumar Singh kidnapped in the background of satisfying the demand of ransom. Then submitted that while the petitioner was under custody at Bettiah Jail in connection with Sikta P.S. Case No.113 of 1993, he was transferred to Motihari Jail on 17.7.1993 and remained languishing there in spite of the fact that production warrant was issued by the competent court in connection with Betiah P.S. Case No.4 of 1994 where lastly he was produced on 28.4.2000. Therefore, submission is that from 22.4.1994, the date on which direction for production was issued with regard to Betiah P.S. Case No.4 of 1994 wherever he was not produced by the by the authorities concerned on account of their own negligence and laches and for that, petitioner could not be held responsible, therefore, the same has to be reckoned from the date on which order for production was issued while counting period of detention in connection with Bettiah P.S. Case no..4 of 1994 wherein he stood convicted for. Then submitted that had the petitioner been produced at an earlier occasion in pursuance of production warrant, certainly the date should have reckoned from the day of his production in connection with Betiah P.S. Case No.4 of 1994. To support his plea, has cited 1998(2) PLJR page 626, NIWAS v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION, 1982 AIR(SC) 1391, GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. ANNE VENKATESWARA RAO, 1977 AIR(SC) 1096, 1995 (1) PLJR 350, 2011(1) PLJR page 234.