1989 (9) TMI 402 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention under habeas corpus.
2. Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Compliance with Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding remand orders.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Applicability of previous judicial decisions to the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Detention under Habeas Corpus:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his detention since 12-8-1986 was illegal due to the lack of proper remand orders as required by Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner argued that the detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The court examined several precedents, including the case of Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, which held that detention without a fresh remand order is illegal. However, the court noted that Section 309 of the new Code does not require a remand order to be signed by the presiding judge, unlike the old Section 344. Thus, the court concluded that the remand orders in this case were not illegal.

2. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that his prolonged detention without trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court acknowledged that a speedy trial is a fundamental right, as established in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. However, the court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial must be examined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the court found that out of 65 adjournments, 41 were sought by the accused, and there was no evidence that the petitioner objected to any particular adjournment. Therefore, the court did not find a violation of the right to a speedy trial.

3. Compliance with Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code Regarding Remand Orders:
The petitioner argued that the remand orders were not in compliance with Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, making his detention illegal. The court examined the provisions of Section 309, which allows the court to adjourn proceedings and remand the accused by a warrant. The court noted that the Designated Court's remand orders were within its powers and that the signing of remand orders by court officers, as per the rules, was not illegal. The court also referred to previous decisions, such as In re Kunjan Nadar, which stated that reasons for adjournment, not remand, need to be recorded.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, alleging a violation of Article 21 due to illegal detention. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Usmanbhai Daudbhai v. State of Gujarat, which held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain bail applications under Sections 439 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for cases under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The court reiterated that the appropriate forum for bail applications is the Designated Court, and any adverse order can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus as misconceived.

5. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions to the Current Case:
The court examined several judicial decisions cited by the petitioner to support his arguments. These included decisions on the requirement of remand orders, the right to a speedy trial, and the jurisdiction of the High Court. The court found that the cited decisions did not apply to the facts of the present case. For instance, the decision in Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi was based on the old Section 344, which required a signed remand order, a provision not present in the new Section 309. The court also noted that the decisions in Hussainara Khatoon and Kadra Pahadiya emphasized the right to a speedy trial but did not mandate bail for every delay in trial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's detention was not illegal, the remand orders were in compliance with Section 309, and there was no violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The court also held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Articles 226 and 227 for habeas corpus in this case. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected.