9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of remand granted in the absence of the accused. 2. Validity of an order for production of the accused on the next date as remand. 3. Effect of previous illegality in granting remand on the present detention of the accused. 4. Entitlement to bail due to illegality in earlier remand despite a valid current remand order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Remand Granted in the Absence of the Accused: The court addressed whether remand orders passed without the accused's presence are valid. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Sandip Kumar Dey v. Officer-in-charge Sakchi P.S. Jamshedpur* and *Raj Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi*, it was held that remand orders made without producing the accused in court are not invalid. The court emphasized that it may sometimes be necessary to order remand in the absence of the accused. In this case, the accused was in police custody for investigation in other cases, making his personal production before the magistrate impractical. Therefore, the remand orders passed in the absence of the accused were deemed proper and justified. 2. Validity of an Order for Production of the Accused on the Next Date as Remand: The court examined whether an order for production of the accused on the next date could be considered a valid remand. The remand orders, recorded on document 'X', were addressed to the jailor and extended periodically. The court file showed that reasons were recorded, and remand orders were passed from time to time. It was concluded that if the endorsements on documents 'X' and 'Y' are read in conjunction with the order-sheets, there is no illegality. The court noted that while remand orders should not be passed mechanically and the accused's presence is generally desirable, the necessity of physical presence depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, an order for production of the accused on the next date is not invalid if the prosecutor's request for further remand is unopposed and no bail application is filed. 3. Effect of Previous Illegality in Granting Remand on the Present Detention of the Accused: The court considered whether any previous illegality in granting remand could render the current detention illegal. It distinguished between habeas corpus cases and bail applications. In habeas corpus cases, the legality of detention is assessed on the day of the court's order. However, in bail applications, the validity of earlier remand orders is relevant. The court cited *Rati Ram v. State of Rajasthan* and *Narayan v. State of Rajasthan*, holding that once an order of remand expires and a fresh order is not passed, the detention becomes illegal. A subsequent valid remand order cannot cure the illegality of a prior invalid detention. Hence, the court affirmed that previous illegal remand orders cannot be validated by subsequent orders, and this principle applies to bail considerations. 4. Entitlement to Bail Due to Illegality in Earlier Remand Despite a Valid Current Remand Order: The court noted that this issue is covered by the analysis of the third issue. It reiterated that the previous illegality in remand cannot be cured by a subsequent valid order, impacting the accused's entitlement to bail. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no illegality in the remand orders passed in this case, and thus the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner was dismissed.
|
