9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrests on November 6, 1968. 2. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 3. Validity of the remand orders. 4. Allegations of mala fides in the arrests. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Arrests on November 6, 1968: The court examined the circumstances surrounding the arrests of Madhu Limaye and others on November 6, 1968. It was found that the arrests were made for offenses under Section 188, IPC, which are non-cognizable. The police reports mentioned various proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 117 of the Cr.P.C., but these did not justify the arrests without a warrant. The court noted that no first information report (FIR) was registered on November 6, 1968, and it was only on November 19, 1968, that an FIR was formally recorded, likely due to the legal actions initiated by the arrested persons. The court concluded that the arrests were effected by police officers without specific orders or directions from a Magistrate, making them illegal. 2. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution: Article 22(1) mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for their arrest and be allowed to consult a legal practitioner. Madhu Limaye asserted that neither he nor his companions were informed of the reasons for their arrest. The State did not effectively counter this claim. The court emphasized the importance of this constitutional provision, noting its role in safeguarding personal liberty. The failure to inform the arrested persons of the grounds for their arrest constituted a violation of Article 22(1), entitling them to be released. 3. Validity of the Remand Orders: The court scrutinized the remand orders issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on November 6 and 20, 1968. It was found that these orders were routine and mechanical, lacking proper judicial application of mind. Given the illegal nature of the initial arrests and the violation of Article 22(1), the remand orders could not cure the constitutional infirmities. The court held that the arrested persons were entitled to be released forthwith due to the flawed remand process. 4. Allegations of Mala Fides: Madhu Limaye alleged that the arrests were made for extraneous considerations and were actuated by mala fides. The court noted that such matters are typically not addressed in habeas corpus proceedings and suggested that these allegations could be more appropriately agitated in other legal actions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court ordered the release of Madhu Limaye and the other arrested persons solely on the ground of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the legality of the arrests with reference to the offenses under Section 188, IPC, and the proceedings under Sections 151 and 107 of the Cr.P.C., as these matters were still sub judice. The court clarified that its observations would not affect the ongoing legal proceedings related to the incidents of November 5 and 6, 1968, in the State of Bihar.
|
