9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention of the applicant after commitment. 2. Validity of the remand warrant issued for an indefinite period. 3. Applicability of Sections 167 and 309 of the Cr.P.C. regarding detention periods. 4. Interpretation of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. regarding commitment and remand of the accused. 5. Comparison with the precedent set in Rajendra Gosain v. Supdt, District Jail, Gonda. 6. Consideration of bail on the grounds of co-accused being granted bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention of the Applicant After Commitment: The applicant, Sunder Lal, contended that his detention in jail post-commitment was illegal due to the indefinite period mentioned in the warrant. The Court examined the commitment order and found no illegality in it. The applicant was committed to the Sessions Judge for trial under Sections 147/148/302/307 of the IPC, and the custody was handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail, till the disposal of the case. The Court concluded that the detention was lawful as it was in compliance with the commitment order. 2. Validity of the Remand Warrant Issued for an Indefinite Period: The applicant argued that the remand warrant for an indefinite period was not contemplated by law. The Court analyzed the warrant, which directed the custody of the applicant "during and till the disposal of the case" before the Sessions Judge. The Court held that the period of judicial custody was not indefinite or arbitrary as it lasted from the commencement to the conclusion of the trial, subject to the provisions relating to bail. 3. Applicability of Sections 167 and 309 of the Cr.P.C. Regarding Detention Periods: The applicant's counsel relied on Sections 167 and 309 of the Cr.P.C., which provide for detention for a definite period. The Court noted that Section 167 allows for detention up to 90 or 60 days, after which the accused can be released on bail if not furnished. Section 309 deals with the postponement or adjournment of trials and remand of the accused. The Court found that these sections did not render the applicant's detention illegal, as Section 209, Cr.P.C., specifically governed the commitment and remand process. 4. Interpretation of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. Regarding Commitment and Remand of the Accused: Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was introduced to provide for the commitment of cases triable exclusively by a Court of Session. It allows the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody "during and until the conclusion of the trial," subject to bail provisions. The Court emphasized that this section is a self-contained code, ensuring that the accused is detained lawfully until the trial's conclusion, unless bailed out. The Court concluded that the commitment and remand order was in accordance with Section 209, Cr.P.C. 5. Comparison with the Precedent Set in Rajendra Gosain v. Supdt, District Jail, Gonda: The applicant's counsel initially relied on the precedent set in Rajendra Gosain's case. However, during the proceedings, it was conceded that this precedent was not applicable to the present case. Consequently, the Court did not find it necessary to examine the questions raised in the referring order by the learned single Judge. 6. Consideration of Bail on the Grounds of Co-Accused Being Granted Bail: The applicant's counsel argued for bail on the grounds that other co-accused had been granted bail. The Court found this argument insufficient, especially since the applicant was involved in a triple murder case. The application for bail was primarily pressed on legal grounds rather than merits, and the Court rejected the bail application, finding no legal infirmity in the applicant's detention. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the detention of the applicant did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The remand warrant, although for an indefinite period, was lawful under Section 209, Cr.P.C., and the applicant's custody was valid until the trial's conclusion. The application for bail was accordingly rejected.
|
