JUDGMENT The gross casualness and indifference of the court, its administrative staff and the Jail authority towards the right of the accused has resulted in the successful culmination of this application. A sad state of affair has come to exist in the district courts generally all over Bihar, of which this case is a sad example. When an accused person is taken into custody and allowed to languish in Jail without even being produced before the Magistrate, who in utter disregard of the law after making the final remand forgets about the prisoner in his judicial custody, the court being entirely callous and un-concerned with the civil liberty of a citizen of a free democracy, then some thing has really gone away with the sensibility of the court and interest in the judicial process seems to have vanished. How can anyone expect justice from such an authority. No wonder if a feeling of despair is created. It is true that there' are un-mitigated difficulties, manifest in the entire day to day working of the court, yet there can be no justification for the present state of affair. The ministerial staff of the Court concerned is entirely indifferent to the situation so conveniently created by him and the counsel appearing for such an accused person just forgets that the life and liberty of a free citizen is in their hands. The profession of law, though is a means of earning livelihood, carries with it the grave responsibility of providing his clients protection against the alienation of his rights of freedom and liberty. Why such a situation is developed is difficult for us to fathom but easy to conjecture. The immensity of the problem is indeed writ large, but no effort is being made by the concerned authorities and individuals to mitigate the situation. The Magistrate, his ministerial staff and the jail authorities seem to have forgotten that the persons in their hands are human being who enjoy the right of freedom and liberty till they are convicted in law which right and liberty is completely curtailed due to their utter negligence and complete disregard of the requirement of law. The process of inspection by the District Judges and the Judicial Commissioner seems to have come to a complete stop or is entirely indifferent in nature allowing the situation to slide to its present state. The process of inspection by the District Judges and the Judicial Commissioner seems to have come to a complete stop or is entirely indifferent in nature allowing the situation to slide to its present state. If these people had been endowed with any sense of justice, any regard for their duties, if the jail authorities and the police authorities involved had any concern for the welfare and rights of a citizen of this country, had the counsel been the real guardians of the welfare of the litigant public, this state of affair would never have come to exist. We do appreciate that there are also practical difficulties in setting things in order in a hurry, but we would be satisfied if a beginning is made. We are at this stage constrained to observe that the government and the civil authorities have not given the necessary attention to this problem. The shortage of space in the law courts, the inadequacy of prison space, the living and working conditions of the Judicial officers and their staff have all contributed to this state of affair. The government is the authority that has a great role to play in curing the present state of affair. 2. The instant case is one of the gross example of the situation spelled out by us above. Petitioner No.1 was arrested on 23-5-1980 and was produced before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, on 24-5-1980 and was remanded to custody. Petitioner No.2 surrendered on 29-7-1980 and was remanded to custody and those were the last remand orders passed in this case and those, too, were the last two days on which the court perhaps saw the faces of the petitioners. We have gone through the entire order-sheet. There is no order of remand or any order indicating their production before the court any where in this proceeding. The bail petitions have been taken up and disposed of. In fact, from the order-sheet it appears that on 29-8-1980 an order was passed initiating commitment proceeding and the A.P.P. was directed to furnish copies of police papers to the accused persons by 12.9-1980 and it was also stated that further remand of the accused persons shall be deemed to be under section 209 (B) Cr.P.C., there being no previous remand or production. The next order-sheet was written on 6-11-1980 and there was no order whatsoever in between. The next order-sheet was written on 6-11-1980 and there was no order whatsoever in between. On that day, One Uday Kumar was released on bail. The application in this Court was filed on 2-3-1981 and was taken up for admission on 3-3-1981 when the original record was called for by us. On 6-3-1981 we heard the matter for admission and on which date it was adjourned to 9-3-1981. On 9-3-1981 it was admitted and listed for hearing today. 3. It appears from the original record of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that on 4-2-1981 a bail petition was filed and moved on behalf of petitioner No.2, hearing of which was fixed for 5-2-1981 at the request of the A.P.P., and the case diary was called for by the order of that date. Thereafter, the next order is dated 21-2-1981. No explanation is given why nothing was done in between the two dates. On that date the case diary was not available because it was stated by the A.P.P. that it has been sent to the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for preparation of copies of the police papers to be supplied to the accused persons. 12-9-1980 was fixed earlier for supply of police papers, but nothing appears to have been done. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, rightly instituted an enquiry as to whether the copies of the police papers are ready for being supplied to the accused. On the same day later it was reported that the copies of the police papers are not ready and the case diary was not available to the A.P.P. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 2-3-1981 for hearing on the bail petition of petitioner No.2 in the light of the case diary. Petitioner No.2, therefore, continued to languish without relief or redress because of no fault of his own and due to gross negligence and indifference of the court, the jail authority and the prosecuting authority. The next orders are dated 28-2-1981 followed by 2-3-1981 and 5-3-1981. The last order dated 5-3-1981 relates to sending the record of the case to this Court. From the above state of affair it is clear that the detention of the petitioners is entirely illegal and contrary to the law. The next orders are dated 28-2-1981 followed by 2-3-1981 and 5-3-1981. The last order dated 5-3-1981 relates to sending the record of the case to this Court. From the above state of affair it is clear that the detention of the petitioners is entirely illegal and contrary to the law. Whatever may be the period of his custody, short or long, no person accused of an offence and who has been sent to jail custody should be allowed to remain there without observing the procedure provided for such detention. It is only a proper remand by the court that legalises an order of detention. That not being there, the detention obviously becomes illegal and the petitioners are entitled to the relief of immediate release. A decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mantoo Majumdar and another Versus The State of Bihar A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 847, may be usefully cited in support of our decision. In paragraph 8 of the said decision the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "We direct the release forthwith of the two petitioners on their own bond without sureties. This Court has held in earlier cases that bail does not involve a necessary component of sureties. We, therefore, direct that on taking the personal recognizance from the petitioners, both of them will be set free subject to such other legal proceedings that the State may take if so warranted." If no step is taken by court, its office and the jail authorities to remedy the situation without delay, it will lead to a large number of innocent persons, rotting in jail and equally a large number of persons who may be convicted, coming out of jail unjustifiably. 4. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners be released On bail of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Ranchi Kotwali P.S. Case No. 58 (5) 80, G.R. Case No. 1371 of 1980. If any difficulty arises with regard to the verification of the bail bonds, till verification they shall be released on the P.R. of the same amount, if not wanted in any other case. 5. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Judge, Administrative Department. Application allowed.