AMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is in illegal custody of the police since 17.4.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner is accused in five cases out of which he has been granted bail in four cases and in one case he has been acquitted. It has been stated that in one of the case, though production warrant has been issued from the trial Court from the State of Bihar but in that case, the petitioner was never produced before the trial Court and therefore, that trial Court has never passed the order of remand so as to keep the petitioner in police custody.

(2.) The respondent submitted a counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner is accused in nine cases, details of which has been given in para-3 of the counter-affidavit. In para-4, it is specifically admitted that the petitioner has been acquitted or granted bail in all the cases except the cases registered at Fathua P.S. Case No. 150/10 and B.S. City Case No. 414/10. In counter-affidavit, it has not been stated that the writ petitioner was to be produced before the Court from where production warrant was issued long back but it has not been stated that the petitioner has been produced before that Court and that Court has ordered to keep the petitioner in custody in Fathua P.S. Case No. 150/10 and B.S. City Case No. 414/10.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail in B.S. City Case No. 414/10 also and therefore, he is not required in that case.