SHYAM BIHARI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha, who at the relevant time was the Joint Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi, has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his detention in custody pursuant to the illegal orders passed by the Special Judge (Annexures 6 and 8) is not justified. It has, therefore, been prayed that the aforesaid impugned orders be quashed, and the petitioner be set at liberty.

(2.) It appears that between the years 1977 and 1996 on the basis of fake allotment orders crores of rupees were withdrawn from different treasuries of the State of Bihar for payment to suppliers who had never supplied goods to the State of Bihar, and in conspiracy with the officers of the Government of Bihar the suppliers on the basis of fake supplies withdrew large sums of money from different treasuries. When this matter came to light several first information reports were registered at different places numbered about 41. The petitioner was named as an accused in some of the first information reports, while in some other cases his complicity was suspected on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation under orders of the Supreme Court. In several cases charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, and the petitioner in some of them has been sent up for trial. In the instant case the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 9-12-1996 passed in Special Case No. 30 of 1996 and order dated 2-1-1997 in Special Case No. 28 of 1996 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Animal Husbandry, Patna. By the aforesaid impugned orders, on the basis of charge-sheets filed by the C.B.I., the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of various offences mentioned in the charge-sheets, 'and in view of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with other cases, issued a production warrant for his production in the aforesaid cases on the dates mentioned in the order taking cognizance.

(3.) The facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1996 in connection with Special Case No. 33 of 1996. Though the petitioner was not named in the first information report, his complicity was suspected. By order dated 17-8-1996 he was admitted to bail, and though a chargesheet was subsequently submitted in the case on 13-2-1997, the petitioner was not sent up for trial. The petitioner was shown to be an accused in several cases arising out of the same transaction. Reference is made to Special Case No. 43 of 1996 in which an allegation was made against one Sri Braj Bhusan Prasad, Accounts Officer, A.H.D., Patna, who is alleged to have committed forgery and issued fake allotment letters during his tenure between the years 1982 and 1996. It was alleged that he had done so in conspiracy with other officers of the Department. In the said case the petitioner was released on bail on 27-9-1996, as has been shown in Annexure-4, which is a list of cases in which the complicity of the petitioner is suspected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was suspected in large number of cases, and his judicial custody was transferred from one case to another illegally. In Special Case No. 30 of 1996 a charge-sheet (Annexure-5) was filed on 30th November, 1996. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet the impugned order (Annexure-6) was passed on 9-12-1996, whereby the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the order and issued a production warrant for the production of the petitioner in the said case on 20th December, 1996, since the petitioner was already in custody in connection with some other cases. Similarly, charge-sheet was submitted in Special Case No. 28 of 1996 (Annexure-7), and on the basis of the said charge-sheet the learned Special Judge took cognizance by the impugned order dated 2-1-1997 and issued production warrant for the production of the petitioner in this case on 17-1-1997. Both the orders mention that the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with some other cases. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I, stated that the petitioner was in custody in connection with Special Case No. 38 of 1996 in which charge-sheet was submitted on 16-10-1996, and he was remanded to custody. It has not been disputed before us that at the time when the impugned orders were passed the petitioner was lodged in jail in connection with some other cases.