GAGAN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions require to be answered in this writ petition : Whether the case of an absconding accused can be committed under Section 209, Cr.P.C. along with the accused who have already appeared before the committing Court and whether the remand to judicial custody by the Sessions Court of the absconding accused, when he appears before that Court is illegal and consequently whether the absconder is entitled to compensation for illegal detention?

(2.) The questions aforesaid arise out of the short fact that in Hussainabad P. S. Case No. 97/1997 dated 27-10-97, G.R. Case No. 1395/97 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltanganj, chargesheet was submitted against some of the accused and some accused were shown as absconders. One of the absconding accused is the petitioner in this writ petition. By order dated 18-7-2000, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the absconding accused were declared absconders and permanent warrant of arrest was issued against them and the commitment was notified to the Public Prosecutor and the record of the case was sent to the Sessions Judge, Palamau. It appears that thereafter S.T. No. 349/2000 was started in the Court of Sessions Judge, Daltanganj. The order dated 2-8-2000 shows that the case of some of the accused were committed on notification whereas the petitioner was shown absconding. The case was fixed after appearance. This was for the appearance of those accused also who had appeared and whose case has been committed. The petitioner was arrested on 31-10-01 and was produced before the Sessions Court and 2nd Asstt. Sessions Judge to whom the case was transferred by the learned Sessions Judge had framed the charge against the petitioner on 30-4-02. Then by order dated 14-11-02, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge noticed that the case of this petitioner as well as some others has not been committed to the Court of Sessions and consequently he directed that the accused whose case were not committed and were in jail custody should be produced in the G.R. case and the accused whose case was not committed but were on bail should make pairvi in the G.R. case, Thereafter, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial of the accused whose case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it transpires that those accused who he tried were acquitted. It is found that by the order dated 21-8-2000, the learned Sessions Judge had directed the issuance of warrant of arrest, non-bailable, along with the processes under Section 82, Cr.P.C. against absconding accused, fixing 14-9- 2000 for their appearance and it appears that the petitioner was arrested on the aforesaid date and he was remanded to jail custody by the 2nd Asstt. Sessions Judge and till the date of the order by which he was directed to be produced before the G.R. Court, he used to be remanded to custody on different dates by the Asstt. Sessions Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decisions rendered in the cases of 1997 Cri LJ 4627 (Karnataka) and 1989 Cri LJ 2470 (Orissa) argued that without complying with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208, as the case may be. no commitment can be ordered and when the accused was absconder, the question of complying with those provisions does not arise, therefore, commitment of the petitioner along with the appearing accused was not legal.