NITIN RAJ VERMA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a charge sheeted accused in connection with RC/221/2012/E0001, dated 02.01.2012 pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to consider and count the period of custody of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case from 19.10.2012 i.e. the date of arrest of the petitioner in connection with some other case i.e. RC-221/2011/E/0001 and RC221/2011/E/0002 pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi or to count the period from the date the petitioner made prayer before the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur for production and remand in the present case i.e. on 04.01.2014 or to count the custody from the date on which the authorities of Birsa Munda Jail received the production warrant for production of the petitioner in the present case i.e. on 05.01.2014 or be counted from the date of filing of the charge sheet in the present case on 19.11.2013.

(2.) To consider the aforesaid prayer, it would be apt to look into the brief facts of this case including the relevant dates. There is no dispute that the petitioner was in custody in connection with some other case since 19.10.2012. The petitioner was never arrested in connection with the present case i.e. RC-221/2012/E/0001 registered on 02.01.2012. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet in this case on 19.11.2013 and in the relevant column of the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the petitioner is in custody with some other case as referred above. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about his involvement in the present case and, accordingly, moved the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur on 04.01.2014 for issuance of a production warrant. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur, accordingly, issued a production warrant addressed to the Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda Jail, Ranchi. However, the petitioner could finally be produced before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur only on 12.01.2015 and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.

(3.) Main contention of the petitioner is that he was not responsible for non-remand in this case for the circumstances which were beyond his control, rather under control of the respondents. Hence, for delayed production of the petitioner in the present case, the petitioner cannot be faulted. Therefore, the period of custody of the petitioner should be counted, at least, from the date on which the petitioner put forward prayer to the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Muzaffarpur for his remand in the present case. Further contention of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstance of this case, the period of custody of the petitioner in some other case should be added to count his custody in the present case also. Reliance has been placed on the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. v. Anne Venkateswara Rao etc. etc, 1977 AIR(SC) 1096, Sundeep Kumar Bafna Versus State of Maharashtra And Another, 2014 16 SCC 623 and Niranjan Singh And Another Versus Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote And Others, 1980 2 SCC 559.