9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electing suitable portion in the said land for cultivation by landless persons who were also present along with the petitioner. The land is stated to be Gair Mazarua land. After his arrest he was taken to Sindri police station and kept there till 2 p. m. and then brought to the District Jail, Dhanbad, to which he was admitted after 3.30 p.m. and is being kept in custody in the said jail under the control of the second respondent to the writ petition, the Superintendent of District Jail, Dhanbad. The petitioner was at no time produced before a Magistrate for remand in the jail custody. The petitioner learnt from the Superintendent of the Jail that he has been remanded to custody under Sections 151, 117(3) and 107 CrPC. He has not been informed about the grounds for his arrest nor furnished with any other information regarding the reasons for his arrest. The petitioner has been arrested by the officers of the Sindri police station due to the influence of Indian Iron and Steel Company who are bent upon grabbing all public lands including Survey Plot No. 295. The petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Patna High Court on August 11, 1970, but it has been withdrawn on S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated August 9, 1970 and August 11, 1970, respectively. The second respondent has annexed to his return a report, dated September 7, 1970, sent by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, regarding the circumstances under which the petitioner and others were arrested on August 9, 1970. 4. In the report of September 7, 1970, the Sub-Divisional Officer has referred to the fact that on August 9, 1970 at about 10 a.m. the petitioner and other workers of the Samyukta Socialist Party entered the Government lands and lands of the Indian Iron and Steel Company situated within the limits of the Sindri police station, in pursuance of land grabbing movement launched by their party. The petitioner and two others mentioned in the report, who are leaders of the party mobilised the villagers of Het Kandra and Upper Kandra to join hands with them and they along with twenty others belonging to the village fixed party flags on Plot Nos. 714, 719, 732, 733, 720 and 295 belonging to the Indian Iron and Steel Company and the Government. After entering the said lands the petitioner and others forcibly started ploughing the plots in spite of objections raised by the Halka Karamchari and the management of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter-affidavit in which he has stated that the facts mentioned in his return originally filed by him were all based on information derived by him from the record of the case. The second respondent has also stated that August 23, 1970 was a Sunday and August 24, 1970 was a holiday and the petitioner who had been directed to be produced before the Magistrate on August 25, 1970, could not be produced as he was sick and the jail doctor had certified that the petitioner was unable to attend the court. Even on the subsequent dates when the petitioner was to be produced before the Magistrate, the petitioner continued to be sick and therefore he could not be taken before the Magistrate. 7. The petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder again reiterating that the complaints Cases 3 and 5 of 1970, Sindri police station, have been purposely manufactured to forestall his attempt to be released by moving the courts for a writ of habeas corpus. 8. Mr Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has attacked the petitioner's detention mainly on two grounds. The first ground of attack was that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds for his arrest and hence there is a violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d respondent has filed along with his return, Annexure I, the report, dated August 7, 1970, of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad. The petitioner is, no doubt, attacking the statements made in the said report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer himself has not sworn the affidavit. Though we do see considerable force in this contention of the petitioner, we are not inclined to reject the report as untrue specially when the second respondent has clearly stated in his return that the Annexure I filed with his counter-affidavit is a true copy of the original report of the Sub-Divisional Officer. If that is so, it is clear that two complaints have been filed, one by the Halka Karamchari and the other by the management of the Indian Iron and Steel Company. They have been registered on the file of the Sindri police station as Cases 3 and 5. One has been filed on August 9, 1970 and the other on August 11, 1970 and investigation is stated to be proceeding in respect 61, those two complaints. The arrest of the petitioner, in the circumstances mentioned in the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, cannot, in our opinion, be considered to be illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivisional Officer, annexed to the return of the second respondent, shows that after the arrest of the petitioner and others on August 9, 1970 at about 10 a.m., they were all produced before him by the Officer In-charge of the Sindri police station, who effected the arrest and that he, the Sub-Divisional Officer, remanded them to jail custody. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within the period referred to in Section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22(2) of the Constitution. We cannot accept the plea of the petitioner that after his arrest he was never produced before the Magistrate at all. The question as to whether he was produced before the magistrate subsequently when further remand orders were passed has no bearing on this contention which is really based on Article 22(2) of the Constitution. 12. Mr S.C. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, has placed before us copies of the warrants issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, to the Officer-In-charge of the District Jail of Dhanbad, for receiving the petitioner in custody. We have also perused the original warrants issued to the jail author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he detention under Section 117(3), CrPC is held to be illegal. But our holding that the detention of the petitioner under Section 117(3) CrPC is not legal, will not assist the petitioner as we will presently show that he is being kept under proper custody in respect of the offence alleged against him under Sections 143 and 447 IPC in Cases Nos. 3 and 5 of 1970, Sindri police station. 14. Coming to Case No. 3 of 1970 it is seen that a warrant for remand has been issued by the magistrate on August 11, 1970 and the remand is up to August 24, 1970. A fresh order of remand was passed on August 20, 1970 up to September 8, 1970. On September 8, 1970 a further remand order was passed up to September 22, 1970, which was followed by another order of remand up to October 6, 1970. The petitioner was reported to be sick and unable to attend the court on August 25, 1970 and on all other subsequent occasions. He was transferred to New Delhi on September 28, 1970 for being produced before this Court. 15. In Case No. 5 of 1970 in the warrant there is a slight mistake regarding the date. The date of remand is shown as September 9, 1970 instead of August 9, 1970 and the remand is also mistakenl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
