2014 (7) TMI 1223 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial custody - bail application - whether the petitioner can be said to be in the unlawful custody? - Held that - Narration of facts that the petitioner is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The same is further ensured from the Original Record which this Court has, by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was illegal detention without any case is incorrect. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Even though there are several other issues raised in the Writ Petition, in view of the facts narrated above, there is no need for us to go into those issues. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for his release in Criminal Case No. 129/13 pending before the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai. After the conclusion of hearing, when the matter was reserved for judgment and the pronouncement of judgment is pending, a Crl.M.P. No. 12866 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking reliefs which are not concerned with the main prayer. The petitioner has also filed another Crl.M.P. No. 14378 of 2014 seeking release of petitioner s mother and grand father. In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons given in the judgment, the reliefs so sought by the petitioner in the said Crl.M.Ps. also cannot be granted in the present habeas corpus writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as available to him in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged illegal detention of the petitioner.
2. Allegations of police brutality and caste-based discrimination.
3. Land disputes and related civil and criminal cases.
4. Judicial remand and procedural propriety.
5. Request for habeas corpus and related reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Illegal Detention of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Saurabh Kumar, claimed that he was called to the police station on 30.6.2013 for an inquiry related to his passport application and was subsequently locked up without any lawful justification. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 1.7.2013 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner argued that his detention was illegal and sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 read with Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents filed counter affidavits indicating that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. He was arrested on 30.6.2013 and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. The court found that the petitioner was in judicial custody by virtue of a lawful order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, thereby negating the claim of illegal detention.

2. Allegations of Police Brutality and Caste-Based Discrimination:
The petitioner alleged that he was beaten with lathis by DSP Manish Kumar Suman in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate, as a form of retribution for his parents' complaints against the Magistrate. He also claimed that he was insulted with caste-based remarks. The court did not delve into these allegations in detail, as the primary issue was the legality of the detention. The court suggested that the petitioner could seek remedies through appropriate legal channels for these grievances.

3. Land Disputes and Related Civil and Criminal Cases:
The case involved a backdrop of land disputes between the petitioner's family and one Rama Kant Singh. Several civil suits and execution proceedings were filed, leading to police involvement for the delivery of possession of the land. A complaint by Mohan Kumar led to the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. The court noted the ongoing civil and criminal litigations and the execution of decrees related to the land disputes.

4. Judicial Remand and Procedural Propriety:
The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.7.2013. The court examined the original records and confirmed that the remand was lawful. The court criticized the Magistrate for remanding the petitioner mechanically without ensuring the swift service of summons to the remaining accused. The court emphasized the need for the Magistrate to act diligently to prevent undue deprivation of personal liberty.

5. Request for Habeas Corpus and Related Reliefs:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus and other reliefs, including compensation for malicious arrest and detention. The court found that the petitioner was lawfully detained and dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The court also dismissed the subsequent Crl.M.Ps. filed by the petitioner seeking additional reliefs, stating that these issues were not relevant to the main prayer of the habeas corpus petition. The court advised the petitioner to file an application for bail in the pending criminal case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding that the petitioner was in lawful judicial custody. The court acknowledged the procedural lapses by the Magistrate but emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to seek bail. The court did not address the allegations of police brutality and caste-based discrimination in detail, leaving the petitioner to pursue these grievances through other legal avenues.

← Previous Next →