CHAMAN LAL JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that the order granting remand to judicial custody to accused SVS Kuldeep Jain, Meethalal and Khajulal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, be declared illegal and consequently the detention to be unlawful. They further prayed that they be directed to be released forthwith.

(2.) The main ground of challenge is that mandatory provisions of S. 167(2), Cr. P. C. have been grossly violated and the order granting remand to judicial custody has been passed in the absence of any prayer by the police or production of the case diary. The petitioners' case is that the Station House Officer, Police Station Motidoongri, Jaipur submitted a written report at the said police station on 19-11-1990 on which F.I.R. No. 275/90 was registered against one Shri D. P. Gupta at.whose residential place as well as business premises a search was carried out revealing a sizable stock of explosives. The case was registered for offences under Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, See. 9(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Sec. 6 of Territorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA'). Meethalal and Khajulal were also arrested in the same case in November, 1990 while Kuldeep Jain in December, 1990. The investigating agency had been investigating the case since the registration of the case but till date no charge-sheet or final report has been filed in the case and repeated remands in casual and routine manners are being obtained. The petitioners' grievance is that on 5-6-1991, 19-6-1991 and 21-6-1991 the Investigating Officer has not produced the case diary before the Court nor application has been moved praying for the remand, yet the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted remand to judicial custody up to 4/07/1991 which order is patently contrary to law making the custody illegal.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the Addl. Advocate General, Shri M. I. Khan, as well as senior standing counsel for the Central Government, Shri R. M. Lodha. Since pure question of law was involved in the case learned counsel for the parties offered to are the case on the next day only. When the ease was taken up learned Addl. Advocate-General submitted that he wants time for filing a reply to the petition regarding the facts of the case. We asked learned Addl. Advocate -General that he would be given an opportunity in case the Court is of the opinion that the merits of the case are required to be gone into the case. We therefore heard earned counsel for the parties regarding the question as to whether remand to judicial custody can be interfered by this, Court when t is mechanically drawn and the mandatory Provisions of S. 167(2), Cr. P.C. have been violated.