RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bail application, submitted on behalf of Ramesh Chand, son of Bal Mukand Agrawal, a resident of Agra. The averments in the application are that the petitioner was prosecuted by the State under Sections 468, 471, and 480, I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City. The trial terminated in his acquittal on April 30, 1971, Another case has been pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur. In that case he has been bailed out. On April 6, 1971, when the petitioner went out of the court room, he was arrested by the police and was produced before the Railway Magistrate, Jaipur, for remand. The said Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody. The petitioner learnt in the judicial custody that a warrant had been issued on April 4, 1971, by the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay (Dadar), for execution and that the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, directed the jail authorities not to release the petitioner till further orders. The Additional District Magistrate also asked the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, (Dadar) to send him the details of the case, but no report has so far been received by him from Bombay. The petitioner applied for the bail in the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur, but the same was rejected on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the entreaty That order is dated May 10, 1972 Thereafter the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge, Jaipur, to liberate him on bail, but that court also rejected his bail application on May 24, 1972, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the petition was misconceived The applicant in the end, stated that there being no case pending against him or under investigation his indeterminate detention is illegal and without jurisdiction. He has also moved a habeas corpus petition for his release. Though he. the petitioner further adds, is in custody under a warrant from Bombay, the Sessions Judge or the High Court have wide powers to admit him to bail.

(2.) I have beard Mr. Bhim Raj appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. G.A. Khan, Deputy Government Advocate. On July 13, 1972, the matter bung urgent, the following order was issued: Heard learned Counsel for petitioner as also learned Deputy Government Advocate The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) will contact today the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur on phone asking him to sent warrant of arrest issued by the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay (Dadar), against accused Ramesh Chandra s/o Balmukand Agrawal, resident of Agra. He should also be asked to send full details of the case as also other relevant papers, if any The Additional District Magistrate may also be asked to send his report as to why Ramesh Chandra was not sent to Presidency Magistrate, Bombay (Dadar), in compliance with the warrant of arrest in accordance with the provisions of Sections 85 86 of the: Code of Criminal Procedure The reply along with the above mentioned papers should be sent to this Court through special messenger.

(3.) THE procedure that has to be followed after the arrest of a person without warrant is indicated in Sections 60 and 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 60 police officer making an arrest without warrant is required, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions as to bail, to take and send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. The object is that the accused should be brought before a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try or commit with as little delay as possible. The expression 'a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case' in Section 60, Cr. P. G, signifies the Magistrate having jurisdiction to entertain the case. The expression in Section 60 'subject to the provisoes herein contained as to bail' refers to the power of the police to liberate on bail. If the police in its discretion does not admit the accused to bail, he is to be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. Section 61, Cr. P. C, lays down that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shell not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167, exceed twenty four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court. This section does not deal with the question of the admission to bail. Section 63. Cr. P. C, simply deals with the person apprehended It provides that no person who has been arrested by a police -officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate. 5. 63, as it is worded, does not empower any Magistrate to release on bail. It only provides for the release of a person arrested without warrant on his bond or on bail or on his discharge under the special order of a Magistrate. Special order of a Magistrate' contemplates an order under Section 167, Cr. P.C.