RAJU NAYAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two criminal misc. petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. raises common controversy or the self-same incident in F. I. R. No. 281/89 P. S. Ashok Nagar (Jaipur ). Therefore, these two petitions which seek to quash order dated 30. 11. 1989 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur & then to release the petitioners on bail giving benefit under Section 167 (2), O. P. C. , lend themselves support to disposal by this common order.

(2.) THE facts & circumstances giving rise to these petitions which lie in a short compass are-

(3.) LEARNED counsel also that the Magistrate extended the time because at the time when he extended the time of detention upto 14. 12. 1989, no challan was filed before the Magistrate and which was filed at 4 p. m. on 30. 11. 89, as is clear from the order- sheet dated 30. 11. 89. LEARNED counsel therefore, contended that the Magistrate extended the period of remand without computing the total period, of detention and without considering the merits for extending the time and that being so, the petitioners seek relief under Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. also because, the investigation was not completed Within 90 days from the date of the remand further that the provisions are mandatory in nature. A look at Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. shows that it empowers the Magistrate to detain the accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term initial for 15 days. And, as observed in Mantoo Majumdar Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1980 SC 847), more importantly, there is a precious interdict protective of personal freedom which state that no Magistrate shall has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody.