Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 112 (ALL)

RUDRAPAL SINGH ALIAS LALLEY v. STATE OF U P

2001-02-06

KRISHNA KUMAR

body2001
KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 17-1-2001 and other orders of the Court. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in view of the illegal cus tody of the revisionist, he is entitled for being released on bail. It is shown that on 15-9-2000 remand order was passed under Section 309 Cr. P. C. by the Court to the Superintendent, Orai to keep the accused in his custody and. to produce him in the Court on the date fixed. 3. It is contended that after the said order the accused was not kept in the cus tody at Orai jail, rather he was sent to Lucknow jail and thereafter he was sent and kept in Sitapur jail. It is contended that the said detention was illegal as it was without any authority of the Court. It is contended that after 15-9-2000 the revisionist was not brought before the Court and there was no valid order for remand of the accused in judicial custody. 4. My attention was drawn towards the order dated 17-1-2001 itself by the learned counsel for the revisionist in which it has been very clearly mentioned that the administrative authorities including the jail authorities have failed to procure the attendance of the accused before the Court so as to enable it to frame charges against the accused. The order also shows that letters were sent to the different authorities and even this much was stated in the letters that if the accused Rudrapal Singh is not produced before the Court, it shall be contempt of Courts, but still the accused was not produced before the Court. When the revisionist-accused was not being produced before the Court in spite of the efforts of the Court itself, it is very clear that there could not be any remand order passed by the concerned Court to keep the accused in judicial cus tody and unless any such order is passed by the Court concerned, the custody of the accused has become illegal after 15-9-2000. Even show-cause notices were is sued against the concerned authorities for contempt of Courts proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist placing reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 26-2-1997 passed in Misc. Even show-cause notices were is sued against the concerned authorities for contempt of Courts proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist placing reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 26-2-1997 passed in Misc. Case No. 958 of 1997, prayed that in view of the said decision when there is no remand order of the accused, the accused should be released on bail on furnishing adequate sureties. 6. My attention was also drawn to several others Annexures to argue that several letters were sent for transferring the accused from Sitapur jail to Orai jail. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist upon the decision of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 233 of 2000, 405 of 2000 and 110 of 2000, wherein this Court has held that in case the accused was not remanded to judicial custody by a legal order, the accused shall been titled lo be released on bail. 7. In view of what has been indicated herein above, the revision is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to released the revisionist on bail in case crime No. 68 of 1994, S. T. No. 17 of 1995 under Sections 147/148/149/307/302/120-B/34 I. P. C. and 27/3 of Arms Act, Police Station Churkhi, district Jalaun, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. How ever, heavy amount of sureties shall be fixed. Revision allowed. .