9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After the conclusion of hearing, when the matter was reserved for judgment and the pronouncement of judgment is pending, a Crl.M.P. No. 12866 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking reliefs which are not concerned with the main prayer. The petitioner has also filed another Crl.M.P. No. 14378 of 2014 seeking release of petitioner’s mother and grand father. In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons given in the judgment, the reliefs so sought by the petitioner in the said Crl.M.Ps. also cannot be granted in the present habeas corpus writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies as available to him in accordance with law. - WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 147 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2014 - SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER VERSUS JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL ANR. J U D G M E N T N.V. Ramana, J. This habeas corpus petition is filed by one Saurabh Kumar who is in Koneila Jail, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur (Bihar). 2. In brief the case of the petitioner is that he was XII pass and wanted to leave the village in search of a decent job. In that connection he made an application for passport. On 30.6.2013 the polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From these two affidavits, it appears that there were land disputes between petitioner s family and one Rama Kant Singh. A Mortgage Suit No. 30/94 was filed against Banwari Roy, who is the grand-father of the petitioner and obtained a decree against him on 28.2.1997 by the Munsif Court. Thereafter, the grandfather of the petitioner preferred Title Suit bearing T.A. No. 17/99 against the said Rama Kant which was subsequently dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Samastipur by order dated 1.6.2013. 6. The said Rama Kant Singh filed an execution case for delivery of possession of the land. The Munsif (Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dalsingsarai) ordered for deputing the police force for the delivery of the land to the decreeholder. In view of the said order, the 6th respondent- Tripathi directed the Nazir, Civil Court, Dalsingsarai to execute the decree passed by the learned Munsif and on 3.3.2013 the said decree was executed which was confirmed by the Munsif by his order dated 15.3.2013. 7. Thereafter, one Mohan Kumar filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.4.2013 which was referred to the police on 1.5.2013 P.S. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and there is no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner. 10. After hearing the counsel and on perusing the affidavits and the material placed before us, it is evident that there are series of cases pertaining to land disputes between the family of the alleged detenu and other villagers. Civil cases were filed initially. During the pendency of a Suit, the father and mother of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 197 of 2012 before this Court. In the said Writ Petition, this Court has passed the following orders: Order dated 9.5.2013 Heard Ms. Lily Isabel Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The District Judge, Samastipur, Bihar is directed to pass an appropriate order in the pending appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. With the above observation, the applications are disposed of. If any petition is filed by the applicants under Section 144 C.P.C., then the same may be considered on its own merits. Order dated 7.6.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clerk is directed to issue custody warrant. Fixed for 15.7.2013 for production of accused from jail. 13. It is clear from the said narration of facts that the petitioner is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The same is further ensured from the Original Record which this Court has, by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was illegal detention without any case is incorrect. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Even though there are several other issues raised in the Writ Petition, in view of the facts narrated above, there is no need for us to go into those issues. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application for his release in Criminal Case No. 129/13 pending before the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai. 14. After the conclusion of hearing, when the matter was reserved for judgment and the pronouncement of judgment is pending, a Crl.M.P. No. 12866 of 2014 has been filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013, referring the matter to the police for investigation. Criminal Case No.72 of 2013 was on that basis registered in the police station against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The affidavits further reveal that the petitioner was, in connection with the said case, arrested on 30th June, 2013 and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur on 1st July, 2013 who remanded him to judicial custody by an order dated 1st July, 2013. From the original record summoned by us for perusal we find that the petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody from time to time by the Court concerned. In the meantime, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 27th August, 2013 followed by a subsequent charge-sheet filed against the remaining accused persons on 3rd December, 2013. It is also manifest from the record that on a perusal of the FIR, charge sheets and the case diaries, the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 504, 379 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do so. He, instead, has been advised to file the present petition in this Court which is no substitute for his enlargement from custody. We are also of the view that the Magistrate has acted rather mechanically in remanding the accused petitioner herein to judicial custody without so much as making sure that the remaining accused persons are quickly served with the process of the Court and/or produced before the Court for an early disposal of the matter. The Magistrate appears to have taken the process in a cavalier fashion that betrays his insensitivity towards denial of personal liberty of a citizen who is languishing in jail because the police have taken no action for the apprehension and production of the other accused persons. This kind of apathy is regrettable to say the least. We also find it difficult to accept the contention that the other accused persons who all belong to one family have absconded. The nature of the offences alleged to have been committed is also not so serious as to probablise the version of the respondent that the accused have indeed absconded. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is free to make an application for the grant of bail to the Court con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
