9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Habeas Corpus writ for an accused under judicial custody based on a valid remand order despite initial detention violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 2. Legality of subsequent remand orders. 3. Appropriate relief for the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Habeas Corpus writ for an accused under judicial custody based on a valid remand order despite initial detention violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution: The petitioner challenged his detention in Varanasi Jail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, asserting that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, violating Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The petition claimed that no proper remand order was passed, and any such orders were signed mechanically by the judge. The Division Bench referred the question to the Full Bench, which had to decide if a subsequent valid remand order could cure the initial illegality of detention. 2. Legality of subsequent remand orders: The State Counsel argued that the petitioner was in jail custody based on valid remand orders received from time to time. The Full Bench had to consider if subsequent remand orders could legalize detention initially deemed illegal due to constitutional violations. The petitioner's counsel contended that initial illegality could not be cured by subsequent orders, citing cases like Vimal Kishore Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Madhu Limaye v. State of Bihar. However, the State Counsel relied on the Full Bench decision in Surjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Supreme Court judgments in Talib Husain v. State of J. & K. and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, which held that the legality of detention should be judged at the time of the return or hearing, not at the initial stage. 3. Appropriate relief for the petitioner: The Division Bench noted that previous instances allowed bail pending the decision of the Full Bench. The Full Bench had to decide if the petitioner should be released based on the initial illegality or if the subsequent valid remand orders could justify continued detention. The Full Bench concluded that the legality of detention should be considered at the time of the return or hearing, and a valid remand order could cure initial constitutional violations. Conclusion: The Full Bench held that an accused in judicial custody based on a valid remand order under Sections 209 or 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be set at liberty solely on the ground of initial detention violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The judgments in Hazari Lal v. State of U.P. and Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., which held that initial illegality could not be cured by subsequent orders, were overruled. The case was referred back to the Division Bench with this opinion.
|
