KANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is yet another bail application moved on behalf of the accused petitioner Under Section 439, Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate does not seek bail on merits and if is only submitted that because at some anterior date prior to the commitment of the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, custody of the accused was illegal, therefore the accused is entitled to bail. It is, therefore, not necessary to give the facts if the case for the disposal of this bail application. But, some dates are material and now they need be mentioned.

(2.) THE accused-petitioner was arrested in a case Under Section 302 I. P. C. etc. on 24-8-1978 and was remanded to police custody. Therefore, on 1-9-1978 the accused was remanded to judicial custody up to 15-9-1978 and was ordered to be produced before the Court' on that date. He was produced in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Kekri on 15-9-1978, but the presiding officer of the court! was transferred and his successor had not taken over, and as such the Reader attached to that court ordered that the accused be produced on 29-9-1978. Again, on 29-9-1978, the Presiding Officer had not taken over and the Reader adjourned the case to 13-10-1978 on which date the Presiding Officer had taken over. Thereafter there were some adjournments and remand of the accused was given by the Presiding Officer but again on 27-11-1978 the Presiding Officer was out in connection with official work and the Reader of the Court ordered that the accused be produced on 4-12-1978. On 4-12-1978, the Presiding Officer was present and he ordered that the accused be produced on 13-12-1978. On 13-12-1978 the learned Magistrate was on leave and the Reader passed an order "accused in judicial custody present. P. O. Sahib is on leave. Put up on 2-1-1979". The accused was thereafter again committed to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge Under Section 209, Cr. P. C. Previously, on the same ground, that is, because the detention of the accused was illegal, as there was no proper remand to judicial custody, a bail application was filed in this Court, which was numbered as 323/79, and Hon'ble Justice Kasliwal dismissed that application on 30-5-1979 observing that the Reader had only adjourned the case and had not' passed any order of remand to judicial custody. Initially, the Magistrate passed an order of remand till further orders and, therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Advocate that the detention of the petitioner is illegal.

(3.) IN this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not even say that' the remand by warrant Under Section 209, Cr. P. C. while committing the accused to the Court of Sessions was not proper. All that is submitted is that because the remand by the Reader was not in accordance with law, and the remand by the learned Magistrate was not proper, therefore on the ground of previous illegal detention, the accused is entitled to be released on bail.