HARI OM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition of habeas corpus the petitioner, who is confined in jail at Sakchi, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 115/98, arising out of Sonari P.S. Case No. 66/97, pending on the file of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur under Ss. 302/34 and 120-B, of the I.P.C. and under S. 27 of the Arms Act, seeks his release on the ground that his detention is illegal and not authorised by any proper order of remand in the case.

(2.) The essential facts giving rise to the writ petition lie in a small compass and are these :-The petitioner was produced after arrest before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sonari P.S. Case No. 66/97 and he was remanded to jail custody on 3-7-1997. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Session on 7-4-1998 by the C.J.M., Jamshedpur (vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition and Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit). It is alleged in the writ petition that at the time of commitment no order was passed by the C.J.M. authorising his further detention and custody in jail in the case which is illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of law. It is further alleged in the writ petition that Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur did not pass any remand order in the case after commitment and 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, at Jamshedpur to whose file the Sessions case travelled on transfer, too did not pass any order authorising the detention of the petitioner in jail custody, and he simply passed order of adjournment of the case on same dates as is apparent from the order sheet of the case records (vide certified copies of ordersheet of the sessions case annexed to the supplementary affidavit) and there has been flagrant violation of themandate of the provisions of S. 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further stated that 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, simply made endorsement of some adjourned dates on the documents which cannot be treated as warrant authorising the detention of the petitioner in jail custody in the sessions case.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case is not set out in the writ petition. The certified copy of the F.I.R. has also not been filed by the writ petitioner.