9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of the accused can be valid? 2. Whether in the absence of a valid order for remand of the accused to jail. only an order for production of the accused on the next date can be treated as valid remand? 3. Whether any previous illegality in granting remand can make the present detention of the accused illegal even though thereafter a valid remand has been granted, 4. Whether on account of some illegality in graph of the earlier remand, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, even though at the time of giving the decision, a valid order of remand exists. 2. Before dealing with the legal aspect of the matter, we would like to mention the facts of the case and the controversy raised by the petitioner on that basis. According to the petitioner he was required to be produced in the court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui for remand on June 18, 1982. The accused-petitioner was neither produced on June 12, 1982, nor on June 18, 1982 and no remand order had been given to sub-jail. Bandikui for his detention after June 18. 1982, ' Order-sheet, dt. June 18, 1982. of the Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Bandikui has been brought to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On this warrant, on June 17. 1982, it has been mentioned that Manohari had been sent to the Court of Additional District Sessions Judge, Dausa for hearing. In view of the fact that all the four warrants had been sent to the Court of Additional District Sessions Judge, Dausa it was prayed that future date may be given for producing the accused persons after receipt of warrants. There is a clear endorsement, dt. June 18, 1982, on the back of this document 'Y' that the accused persons be produced on June 29. 1982. after the receipt, of the warrants. As already mentioned above in document marked 'X' the time was extended from June 29, 1982 to July 12, 1982. Then on the back of the document marked 'X' the period has been extended from July 12. 1982 to July 27. 1982. Then from July 27, 1982 to August 5, 1982 and from August 5. 1982 to August 16, 1982, and from August 16. 1982 to August 28. 1982. We have called the file of bail application filed by the accused under Section 439, Cr. P.C. before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge. Dausa. The record of file No. 351/82, Manohari v. State, under Section 439, Cr. P.C. has been produced. In this file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Dausa as his bail application was listed in that Court for hearing. On June 18. 1982, the case was adjourned to June 29, 1982 on which date the presence of accused Manohari is recorded in the order sheet, Dt. June 29, 1982 and the case was, adjourned to July 12, 1982. for filing of the challan. Thereafter on all the dates July 12. 1982. July 27. 1982. August 5, 1982, August 16. 1982, August 28. 1982 and Sept. 6, 1982, the accused Manohari was present in the Court of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Bandikui. On Sept. 6, 1982. the case file was ordered to be sent to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa as the case had been committed to that Court and the accused persons were directed to be presented in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa on Sept. 17, 1982. A perusal of the entire record clearly shows that remand orders were passed from time to time. 4. Now we shall deal with the legal; objections raised by the learned Counsel) for the applicant. First point raised is that the remand was granted in the absence of the accused and as such orders of remand passed in the absence: of the accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en for producing the accused, It cannot be denied that the remand orders cannot be passed mechanically and the Magistrate passing an order of remand ought, as far as possible, to see that the prisoner is produced before the Court when the remand order is passed. It would however, depend upon the facts} and circumstances of each individual; case whether physical presence of the accused was necessary and further order of remand should be given or not. However, it cannot be said that merely an order for production of the accused on the next date would be invalid even if the request for further remand by the prosecutor is not opposed by the accused or no bail application is filed on his behalf. This answers question No. 2, referred by the learned single Judge. 6. Next question is whether any previous illegality in granting remand can make the present detention of the accused illegal even though thereafter a valid remand has been granted? Learned Public Prosecutor in this regard has placed reliance on certain cases of habeas corpus. The consideration in those cases stands on a different footing. In cases of habeas corpus it has to be seen on the day of passing of the order by the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
