LAWS(RAJ)-1952-9-23

HANWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 09, 1952
HANWANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Hanwantsingh alias Chhai-singh for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE case of the applicant is that he was arrested on the 2nd of February, 1952, at Dhankoli, in connection with a case of alleged abduction of one Satyanarain, son of Hanuman Bux Somani of Dhankoli, by some dacoits, and his subsequent release by them after getting a heavy ransom from his parents. We are told that the applicant applied for bail about the end of February, 1952; but that application was rejected. THE police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant and others on the 10th of March, 1952, before the First Class Magistrate of Didwana. THE applicant regained in custody in Didwana upto the 19th March, 1952 when he was transferred to the jail at Jodhpur. On the 18th March, 1952 when he was in jail at Didwana, which is in the district of Nagaur, the District Magistrate of Nagaur passed an order under sec. 7 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act (No. IV) of 1950, as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act (No. IV) of 1951. THE grounds of detention were also supplied to the applicant soon after while he was in the Central Jail at Jodhpur. Later, the applicant was transferred from Jodhpur to the Central Jail at Jaipur, and thereafter made the present application on the 1st of August, 1952. It may be mentioned that his case has been considered by the Advisory Committee under the Preventive Detention Act, and the order of the District Magistrate of Nagaur has been confirmed.

(3.) THE next question is as to what is the proper order to be passed in the present case. We have already mentioned that the applicant was originally put in jail in connection with his prosecution on a criminal charge. We cannot, therefore, order his release unconditionally. THE proper order therefore is to set aside the order of detention and direct the release of the applicant, unless he has to remain in custody in view of the criminal charge that is pending against him.