9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 1080 - SC - Indian LawsRefusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus - offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 114 of IPC - Held that - Unless the court is satisfied that a person has been committed to jail custody by virtue of an order that suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted. It is apposite to note that the investigation, as has been dealt with in various authorities of this Court, is neither an inquiry nor trial. It is within the exclusive domain of the police to investigate and is independent of any control by the Magistrate. The sphere of activity is clear cut and well demarcated. Thus viewed, we do not perceive any error in the order passed by the High Court refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus as the detention by virtue of the judicial order passed by the Magistrate remanding the accused to custody is valid in law. Though we have not interfered with the order passed by the High Court, yet we would request the High Court to dispose of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application within a period of six weeks.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the FIR and investigation. 2. Validity of the remand order by the Magistrate post-stay of investigation. 3. Legality of the accused's detention and the applicability of habeas corpus. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the FIR and Investigation: The appellant challenged the registration of FIR No. I-CR No. 56/12 and the subsequent investigation under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, and 114 of the IPC. The appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10303 of 2012 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Gujarat, seeking quashing of the FIR and a stay on further proceedings. The High Court issued an interim stay on the investigation on 17.7.2012. 2. Validity of the Remand Order by the Magistrate Post-Stay of Investigation: The appellant was arrested on 16.7.2012 and remanded to police custody by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) on 17.7.2012. Despite the stay order on further investigation, the Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody. The High Court held that the remand order was not part of the investigation and thus, not in conflict with the stay order. It was emphasized that the remand order is a judicial act, not an executive one, and the Magistrate's authority under Section 167(2) of the Code to remand the accused was not eclipsed by the stay on investigation. 3. Legality of the Accused's Detention and the Applicability of Habeas Corpus: The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition contending that the detention was illegal as the investigation was stayed. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the stay on investigation did not nullify the FIR or the initial investigation steps, including the arrest. The High Court noted that the remand order by the Magistrate was a judicial act and not part of the investigation, thus not covered by the stay order. The court further observed that illegal or unauthorized detention is a prerequisite for a writ of habeas corpus, and since the detention was pursuant to a judicial act, it could not be termed illegal. Significance of Habeas Corpus: The judgment elaborated on the importance of the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy against illegal detention. It cited various precedents, emphasizing that habeas corpus ensures the immediate determination of the legality of detention. The court referenced several cases, including *Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien*, *Ranjit Singh v. The State of Pepsu*, and *Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling*, to underline that habeas corpus is a crucial judicial tool to protect individual liberty. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the remand order was valid and the detention was lawful. The court reiterated that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted if the detention is based on a judicial order that is not prima facie without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court was requested to dispose of the pending Criminal Miscellaneous Application within six weeks. The appellant was granted liberty to seek bail from the appropriate court.
|
