9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the head of each of Dharam Singh and his wife and pushed them into a room which they bolted from outside. They further dragged Ramesh son of Dharam Singh. Ramesh, however, resisted on account of which he was inflicted injuries to which he succumbed later on in the hospital. Case was registered at 8.05 A.M. on 14th November 1979. (3) The petitioner was arrested on 21st November at Delhi. He was produced before a Magistrate on 22nd November 1979 and remand for his custody from time to time was taken from a Magistrate. Lastly, it was on 12th February 1980 that he was produced before Smt. Urmila Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody up to 27th February 1980. On 19th February 1980 the Police filed charge sheet against the present petitioner and Durbeen Singh. Smt. Urmila Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, passed the following order : CHALLAN filed today. It be registered. Accused is in J G in Tihar Jail. Issue P. W. for 27.2.1980, already fixed. (4) The petitioner brought an application under Section 439 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi, for grant of bail. That application was dismissed on 5th March 1980. The present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence: (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts) (e) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (6) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail on the following grounds : (I)As the petitioner had been arrested on November 21 1979, 90 days expired on 18th February 1980 on account of which petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail on that date itself. There was no necessity of even an application for grant of bail as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Noor Mohd. v. State (1978) Ii Del 442. (II)Even if 24 hours, which is same as one day, for which accused can be kept in custody by the Police, under Section 57 of the Code are excluded for the purpose of computing 90 days of remand permissible under Section 167 of the Code, 90 days expired on 19th February 1980. Therefore, Metropolitan Magistrate cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted from 22nd November 1979, in the present case. In that way the period of 90 days of remand to custody which was permissible to be granted by a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code expired on 19th February 1980. On that date itself i. e. 19th February 1980 report was filed by the Police before Smt. Urmila Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who took cognizance of the same and adjourned the case to 27th February 1980 with the direction that the present petitioner (who was then in jail ) be produced before her on 27th February 1980. It is clear that she had applied her judicial mind in respect of the case and she wanted to proceed further with the case. That is why she. had directed production of the present petitioner on 27th February 1980. It could be after production of the petitioner that she could proceed further in view of Section 273 of the Code which required that all evidence taken in the course of trial and other proceedings shall be taken in presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader. It is true that there should have been some order by the learned Magistrate for securing the presence of the other accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y means that the legislature no longer thought it necessary that there should be express order of remand to Judicial custody. Hence, judgment of Allahabad High Court, which was on the interpretation of Sub-section (1) of Section 344 of the Old Code, is no longer good law. Therefore, in the present case it was not necessary on the part of the learned Magistrate to have made express order of remand of the accused to Judicial custody and her order to the effect that the present petitioner who was in Jail be produced on 27th February 1980, clearly indicates that the accused was to be kept in custody till February 27, 1980 on which date he was to be produced before her. Thus after the power of remand to custody under Section 167 of the Code was exhausted on account of expiry of 90 days on 19th February 1980 petitioner was remanded to Judicial custody in exercise of power under Section 309 of the Code. In that way, not only that the custody of the petitioner was absolutely legal, his right to grant of bail under proviso (a) of Sub-se.ction (2) of Section 167 never accrued to him. (9) On merits, the petitioner is not entitled to bail because there are reasonable grounds to believe, arisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
