9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India 2. Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India 3. Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr. P.C. 4. Validity of remand orders Detailed Analysis: Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India: - Sher Bahadur's Case: The petitioner was arrested on 27-4-1992, and there was a dispute regarding his production before the Magistrate on 28-4-1992. The court found no reliable evidence of compliance with Article 22(1) as no general diary or case diary entries were produced. Thus, Sher Bahadur's detention was deemed improper, and he was ordered to be released forthwith. - Ashwani Kumar's Case: The recovery memo prepared at the time of arrest indicated that the reasons for arrest were disclosed to Ashwani Kumar. The court found that the provisions of Article 22(1) were complied with. - Israr Ahmad's Case: The petitioner alleged arrest on 8/9-4-1992, but the State argued he was arrested on 16-4-1992. The court found the State's explanation plausible and held that the reasons for arrest were disclosed as per the recovery memo. - Zakir's Case: The petitioner claimed non-disclosure of arrest reasons on 24-1-1992. The State provided a recovery memo indicating the reasons were disclosed. The court found compliance with Article 22(1). Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India: - Sher Bahadur's Case: The court found no valid remand order and thus, a violation of Article 22(2). - Ashwani Kumar's Case: The remand orders were found lawful, with initial remand on 1-5-1992 and subsequent remand on 14-5-1992. No violation of Article 22(2) was found. - Israr Ahmad's Case: The court dismissed the petition based on the finding that the arrest and subsequent remand were lawful. - Zakir's Case: The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, and the court found no violation of Article 22(2). Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr. P.C.: - Sher Bahadur's Case: No entries from the general diary or case diary were produced to prove compliance with Section 50. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner. - Ashwani Kumar's Case: The recovery memo indicated compliance with Section 50. - Israr Ahmad's Case: The court found that the recovery memo and general diary entries indicated compliance with Section 50. - Zakir's Case: The recovery memo handed over to Zakir indicated compliance with Section 50. Validity of Remand Orders: - Sher Bahadur's Case: The court found discrepancies in the affidavits and no valid remand order, leading to the petitioner's release. - Ashwani Kumar's Case: The remand orders from 1-5-1992 to 14-5-1992 and subsequent remand were found valid. - Israr Ahmad's Case: The court found the remand orders lawful and dismissed the petition. - Zakir's Case: The court found the initial and subsequent remand orders lawful and dismissed the petition. Conclusion: - Sher Bahadur: The petition succeeded due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) and the absence of a valid remand order. He was ordered to be released forthwith. - Ashwani Kumar: The petition failed as the court found compliance with Article 22(1) and valid remand orders. - Israr Ahmad: The petition failed as the court found lawful arrest and remand. - Zakir: The petition failed as the court found compliance with Article 22(1) and valid remand orders. Final Orders: - Sher Bahadur: Released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. - Ashwani Kumar, Israr Ahmad, Zakir: Petitions dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
|
