SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of habeas corpus has been filed for release of the petitioner, who, in contravention of the provision of Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been in police custody with effect from 17.2.2009 until he was ordered to be released by this Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise this application are that the officials of the Electricity Board when laid a raid on 17.2.2009 in the factory of the petitioner known as Neha Cement Pvt. Ltd. Company, electric energy was found being consumed stealthily by tampering with the meter and in that course, when the petitioner made an attempt to flee from there, he was apprehended by the police when he fell down and broke his leg. Thereupon, Mandu (Kuju) P.S. case No. 57 of 2009 was registered under Section 379 read with Sections 136 and 138 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner having been arrested was not produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, rather he was taken to Brindavan Hospital & Research Centre, Ramgarh by the opposite party No. 3, who was entrusted with investigation of the case by the Officer-in-Charge of Mandu Police Station. Thereafter, opposite party No. 3 intimated to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on 18.2.2009 that the petitioner is being treated at Brindavan Hospital & Research Centre, Ramgarh by the Doctor and as per the advice of the Doctor, petitioner is to be operated upon and, therefore, petitioner would be produced before the court after he gets cured. Thereafter, a bail application was field on behalf of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, which was rejected on 26.2.2009 holding therein that the bail application is not maintainable as the petitioner has not been produced before the court. Being aggrieved with that order, this writ application has been filed challenging the said order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby prayer for bail was rejected on the ground that the application for bail is not maintainable and also for setting the petitioner at liberty on the ground that the detention of the petitioner is illegal on account of non-production of the petitioner before the court within 24 hours in terms of Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Earlier when the case had been taken up, notice was issued to opposite party No. 3 calling upon him to submit his show cause/counter affidavit by 30.4.2009 which he did. Meanwhile, petitioner was granted bail