JUDGMENT : S. Hukato Swu, J. 1. These are four bail applications filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.PC praying for granting of bail. The accused namely, Zheshito Swu, son of late Yelhozhe, Kiyevi village aged about 65 years (ii) Vikaho Kappo, son of Khutokho, Kiyevi village aged about 53 years, (iii) Ghosheto Swu, son of late Yelhozhe, Kiyevi village aged about 55 years and (iv) accused Lovito Sumi, son of Hokiqhe, Diphupar F-Khel, aged about 32 years were all arrested by the State Crime Branch from two different locations at 4th Mile Diphupar Dimapur on 30-03-2021 at around 5:00 A.M. The accused/petitioners were arrested in connection with 22-03-2021 incident where some unknown miscreants killed three persons at Lamhainamdi village. Case was registered at Kohima State Crime Branch as case No. 2/21 under Section 302/120B/188/34 IPC read with 251A/27(3) Arms Act and a correspondent case before the Kohima Magistrate's Court was registered as G.R. No. 26/2021. A bail application was filed before the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima on 05-04-2021. During the hearing of bail application the issue of jurisdiction was raised and the learned PD&SJ on examination of the issue came to the conclusion that the PD&SJ Kohima had no jurisdiction to try the matter which is reproduced herein below:- "ORDER 05-04-2021 Present Shri Kathu, learned P.P. for the State and Mr. Joshua, the learned counsel. The I/O of the case, namely, UBI K. Chopathung Ngullie is also present. I have heard the parties and perused the records. 2. Accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi are produced on expiry of the period of police custody with a prayer by the I/O to remand them to 14 days judicial custody. It may be noted that two other accused, namely, Zheshito Swu and Vikhaho Kappo have already been remanded to judicial custody. 3. At the very outset, during the course of proceeding, the question of jurisdiction cropped up and as such, this issue will be dealt with. The investigation into the instant case was set into motion by lodging of a suo motu FIR at the State Crime Police Station. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the State Crime PS extends to the whole of the State of Nagaland. There is also no dispute that the lone PS of the State Crime Branch is at Kohima. There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the State Crime PS extends to the whole of the State of Nagaland. There is also no dispute that the lone PS of the State Crime Branch is at Kohima. However, there is no designated Court to deal with the matters of State Crime PS. Neither is there any notification by the State Government designating the Court at Kohima to deal with the instant case. As such, in the absence of designated court or notification to deal with the instant case, the registration of the instant case at Kohima is contrary to law. 4. As per the provision of Section 177 CrPC, every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Thus, even though the jurisdiction of the State Crime PS extends to the whole of Nagaland, the District Courts within whose jurisdiction the crime was committed will have jurisdiction over the matter. It is submitted by the I/O that the place of occurrence in the instant case is a disputed area and yet to be demarcated and it is not certain whether it will fall under Dimapur or Peren District. In such cases, the provision of Section 178(a) CrPC comes into aid which states that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Thus, the Court of Dimapur and/or Peren will have jurisdiction over the instant case. As such, in view of the aforesaid, the courts at Kohima have no jurisdiction over the instant case. The SIT and/or the I/O of the case is to intimate the court of the undersigned to which of the district court the instant case should be inquired into and tried so as to transmit the case records. 5. Meanwhile, in the interest of justice, the accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi are hereby remanded to 14 days judicial custody as prayed for by the I/O for completion of the investigation. Supply a copy of this order to the I/O of the case and to the SIT." 2. However, the learned PD&SJ remanded the accused persons Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi for 14 days for the I.O. to complete investigation. Supply a copy of this order to the I/O of the case and to the SIT." 2. However, the learned PD&SJ remanded the accused persons Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi for 14 days for the I.O. to complete investigation. On 16-04-2021, the learned CJM, Kohima remanded the co-accused Zheshito Swu and Vikaho Kappo to another 14 days judicial custody. Thereafter, another application was filed before the learned PD&SJ, Kohima on 19-04-2021 by UBI Vithalietuo Kire on behalf of Special Investigation Team praying for further 14 days judicial custody of accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi. On examining the record, the learned PD&SJ observed that the learned CJM, Kohima without noticing the order dated 05-04-2021 had inadvertently remanded the other two co-accused namely, Zheshito Swu and Vikaho Kappo to another 14 days judicial custody by order dated 16-04-2021. He further observed that despite the order dated 05-04-2021, wherein it was explicitly ordered that the Court at Kohima does not have jurisdiction over the instant case and directed the SIT or the I.O. of the case to intimate the Court as to which appropriate forum has the jurisdiction in the instant case so that the Court may take steps to transmit the case record. Yet no step was taken by the SIT or the I.O. of the case. Therefore, he declared the order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the learned CJM, Kohima was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Further he observed that SIT not taking step to determine which Court has the jurisdiction in the instant case would result in the accused persons being under illegal detention. The SIT was directed to take immediate steps for approaching the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over the instant case. Order dated 19-04-2021 is annexed for clarity: "ORDER 19.04.2021 An application is received from UBI Vithalietuo Kire on behalf of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) praying for further 14 days judicial custody of the accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi. A perusal of the record shows that by order dated 05.04.2021 this court has held that the courts at Kohima have no jurisdiction over the instant case. By the same order, the above named accused persons were remanded to J/C in the interest of justice so as to enable the SIT and/or the I/O to take steps for approaching the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. By the same order, the above named accused persons were remanded to J/C in the interest of justice so as to enable the SIT and/or the I/O to take steps for approaching the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. However, no step shave been taken till date by either the I/O or by the SIT. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned CJM without noticing the order dated 05.04.2021 had inadvertently remanded the other two accused, namely, Zheshito Swu and Vikhaho Kappo to another 14 days J/C vide order dated 16.04.2021. However, an order passed without jurisdiction will be a nullity. Be that as it may, it is very unfortunate to note that despite the order dated 05.04.2021 without any ambiguity holding that the court at Kohima do not have jurisdiction over the instant case and thereafter directing the SIT and/or the I/O of the case to intimate the court as to which appropriate forum having jurisdiction the instant case should be enquired into so as to transmit the case records, yet no steps have been taken by the SIT and/or by the I/O of the case. As such, the prayer of the SIT to remand the two above named accused persons to another 14 days J/C cannot be entertained due to lack of jurisdiction. Needless to say, the consequences of the SIT not taking steps would result in the accused persons being under illegal detention. The SIT is hereby directed to take immediate steps for approaching the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over the instant case." 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. Joshua Sheqi submits that the accused are under illegal detention from the period that the learned PD&SJ, Kohima has declared that the Court of Kohima has no jurisdiction. The accused are under illegal detention and they must be released without any further delay. Learned counsel has argued that illegal detention must be explained satisfactorily by placing reliance upon the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 Writ Petition Criminal No. 9 of 1994, the Apex Court wherein has ruled that the detention of any citizen for even a few days has to be thoroughly explained and the requirement of effective enforcement of fundamental rights has to be complied with. In the instant case, there is gross violation of the procedure and cannot stand the test of the provision of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution and also the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code with respect to remand has been thrown to the winds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the dispute is within the jurisdiction of Kiyevi village. Early as 25th June, 2019, the then Chief Secretary, the Joint Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had passed orders related to the disputed land when Lamhainamdi was sought to be established. The orders are reproduced chronologically for understanding the issue: "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND DEPARTMENT of HOME GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BRANCH-I No. GAB-1/333/2014(Vol-1) Dated Kohima, the 25th June, 2019 ORDER Whereas, a report has been received from the Commissioner, Nagaland that serious Law & Order situation is apprehended after the reported activities for establishing a new settlement by the name Lamhai Namdi. and whereas, the boundaries between Dimapur and Peren district are yet to be demarcated and land dispute between Lamhai with neighboring villages is sub-judice. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Status-quo shall be maintained by all parties concerned and no activity whatsoever for any development or constructions shall be carried out in the disputed area till the cases are settled by the Honourable Courts and land boundaries are demarcated between the Dimapur and Peren Districts. Violation of this Order by any individual or groups of individuals will be prosecuted as per provision of Law. Sd/- (TEMJEN TOY), IAS Chief Secretary, Nagaland" "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND OFFICE of THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA Phone No. 0376-2290472 Fax No. 0370-2290478 EmailID:Commissionernagaland@gmail.com No. CNG-1/45/COM/KHEHOI/2018/785 Dated Kohima, the 8th July, 2019 To, The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland The Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland Sub:-Matter relating to establishing of new settlement by the name of Lamhai Namdi Sir, On the subject cited above, I am directed to state that there are reports that some people are still hanging around in the disputed area despite Order issued by the Government for maintaining Status quo vide Order No. GAB-1/333/2014 (vol-1) Dtd. 25th June, 2019. You are therefore directed not to allow any person to loiter around in that location irrespective of any community for maintaining peace and tranquility. If any people are still present in the disputed area they are to immediately vacate out of the disputed area. 25th June, 2019. You are therefore directed not to allow any person to loiter around in that location irrespective of any community for maintaining peace and tranquility. If any people are still present in the disputed area they are to immediately vacate out of the disputed area. This is for your kind information and compliance. Yours faithfully, (VIKISHE SEMA) Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland" "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND OFFICE of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIMAPUR: NAGALAND No. GEN-09/2017-D/11489-92 Dated Dimapur, list Feb, 2021 To, The Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima Sub:-FORWARDING of JOINT VERIFICATION REPORT. Sir, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am forwarding herewith a joint verification report at the disputed Lamhai Namdi village conducted on 30/01/2021. In this regard, as per the Home Department Order No. GAB-1/333/2014 (Vol-1) dated 25th January, 2019, it was ordered that Status Quo should be maintained by all parties concerned and no activity whatsoever for any development or construction shall be carried out in the disputed area. However, on 1st February, 2021 also, report was received that some activity is being carried out allegedly by people belonging to Peren District. Therefore, it is requested of your authority to kindly issue directives for maintenance of Status Quo to parties concerned to avoid any law and order issues. This is for your kind information & further necessary directives please. Enclosed: As stated above. Yours faithfully, (RAJESH SOUNDARARAJAN) IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland" 5. The above orders clearly shows that the people from Peren District were developing in the disputed area despite orders from the Government. The Government is responsible for not being able to enforce their own orders which has led to this unfortunate incidence. 6. The disputed area squarely falls far inside the jurisdiction of Kiyevi village which can be clearly understood by the map. Kiyevi falls within the jurisdiction of Dimapur which is clearly notified by the Government Notifications as reproduced. "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT GENERAL.............. BRANCH NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the Dec' 06. No. CAB-5/8/78 (Vol-1):: The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order that the Kiyevi Village which has been under the administrative jurisdiction of the A.D.C., Peren, shall henceforth be under the administrative control of the A.D.C., Dimapur and shall form part of the Dhansiripar Circle of the Dimapur Sub-Division of Kohima District with immediate effect. Sd/- I. LONGKUMER, Chief Secretary to the Govt. Sd/- I. LONGKUMER, Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland" "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the 27 Sept, 88 NO. RD/VDB-10/85: Consequent upon the transfer of Kiyevi Village from Administrative control of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Peren to Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide Notification NO. GAB-2/21/85 dated 24-06-86 the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to transfer Kiyevi Village from Jalukie Block to Medziphema Block for the purpose of Block Administration. Sd/- LALHUMA Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland" 7. From the above orders, it is clear that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Dimapur, however, the investigation has totally ignored this and brought confusion in the instant case. 8. He has argued that the accused persons have been detained only on the basis of CDR and the tower location. However, it must be pointed out here that the mobile tower is located just outside the house of accused petitioner Zheshito Swu who is entitled to be in his residence and the mobile tower location would only show his place which is not far away from the place of incident. He argues that the mobile tower location and the CDR cannot be the basis of proof that the accused persons are guilty of the offence. He has submitted that these are only circumstantial evidence which cannot be considered at all for refusing to grant of bail to the accused persons. He has placed reliance upon the case of Shanu vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 03-03-2017. In the above referred case, the accused was arrested on circumstantial evidence collected against him at the relevant time as per their mobile phone location, he was present in the area of Hindaun City. Apart from the said evidence there was no other evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had committed the murder of the deceased. The court considering the matter released the accused on bail. Although the same is a ruling of the High Court judicature of Rajasthan, the ruling has persuasive effect upon the decision of other High Court. He has therefore argued that there is no other evidence at all against the accused persons except for the allegation that as per the mobile tower location the accused were in the vicinity of the place of occurrence of the crime during the relevant time. He has therefore argued that there is no other evidence at all against the accused persons except for the allegation that as per the mobile tower location the accused were in the vicinity of the place of occurrence of the crime during the relevant time. It is repeated that the accused persons are from the village nearby and their location would obviously show that they are within the vicinity. Their presence in the vicinity does not show anything nor is it an evidence to be considered that they were the perpetrators of the crime, there are no materials at all against the accused persons. 9. Learned counsel has further argued that the Court of Kohima clearly lacks territorial jurisdiction and Section 461 Cr.PC clearly lays down that if any magistrate not being empowered by law in this behalf does any of the following thing namely, (1) tries an offender his proceeding shall be void. He has therefore argued that it is an inquiry without jurisdiction and it will be null and void. For all the reasons stated, it is clear that the accused have been detained on mere suspicion without any evidentiary proof, no material evidence have been seized, the accused persons have been under illegal detention with effect from 05-04-2021, the investigation has tried to rely solely on tower location and CDR records which are very weak evidence for refusing bail application of the accused persons. They have been detained violating the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code therefore violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the accused persons must be set at liberty without any further delay. 10. The argument is presented by learned counsel for the petitioners Joshua Sheqi that the whole incidence is the result of the failure of the Government as presented for non implementation of its own order which is reflected in order dated 25-06-2019 passed by the Chief Secretary to maintain status quo order dated 08-07-2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Nagaland directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur and Peren not to allow any person to loiter around the location of dispute and also the letter dated 01-02-2021 addressed to the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur with respect of activities being carried out by people belonging to Peren district and to pass directives to maintain status quo. None of the above orders were implemented. Thus, resulting in the conflicts. None of the above orders were implemented. Thus, resulting in the conflicts. He has argued that the Government is to be blamed for the incident. However, the issue is best represented to the Government considering that this point cannot be a ground for considering bail application. 11. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned P.P. appears for the State respondent and submits that this case is a very serious case wherein three persons were murdered. The instant case is also very sensitive having tribal issues. The accused persons are all from UG faction and the bullet shells collected from the place of incident are all assault weapons which the common civilian population does not possess thereby meaning that it can only be the handiwork people connected with the underground. Accused Zheshito Swu conspired with the three accused persons and there is the strong suspicion that they were involved in the incident. The CDR record shows that accused Ghosheto Swu was conversing with some unknown person wherein, it has been stated that there are incriminating conversation recorded. The relevant portion of incriminating conversation are reproduced below: Caller 1: I am in Longleng Called No: So how is the situation there? Caller 1: Everything is fine here. Called No: Well have you heard about the incident in our village or not? Caller 1: Yes, I have heard but what else can we do!! Called No: we have started, already started. We have laid down 3 (three) people in a place where we used to go for hunting when our village was established. Caller 1: Oh Called No: After since the situation has worsened and that a lot of security personnel has been stationed in our area in the village. By the way, didn't you go for election duty? Caller 1: No, I am in battalion here so I didn't go. 12. Learned P.P. Ms. V. Suokhire submits that these are the incriminating revelations which were recorded, all the accused being in conversation with each other have conspired for the commission of the offence. The learned P.P. also submits that through the revelations of the accused persons in custody, one more person has been arrested. There is likelihood of making more arrest. The learned P.P. also submits that for the sake of confidentiality, several informations could not be highlighted for the interest of the investigation. The learned P.P. also submits that through the revelations of the accused persons in custody, one more person has been arrested. There is likelihood of making more arrest. The learned P.P. also submits that for the sake of confidentiality, several informations could not be highlighted for the interest of the investigation. She submits that the State Crime Branch is in the practice of conducting investigation and after the investigation it would be charge sheeted in the appropriate court having jurisdiction. Therefore, she submits that there is no irregularity. She also submits that the provision of Section 461 is not applicable in the instant case since the provision of 462 Cr.PC provides that; "No findings, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division, or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice." Therefore, the argument that the investigation should be treated null and void is not correct. 13. She further objects to the bail application submitted by Akato Y. Zhimomi for the release of Zheshito Swu pointing out that the Identity Card furnished by the petitioner in Bail Application 5/2021 has expired. The card furnished is valid uptill 31-03-2021. Therefore, she objects the bail application filed by Akato Y Zhimomi whose Identity card has expired. Learned P.P. has taken this Court to the provision of Section 439 Cr.PC and relied upon several judgments of the Apex Court wherein petition for bail has been rejected where offence are of serious nature. She has submitted that in offences of serious nature the Apex Court has always rejected bail applications. She has placed reliance on the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , "9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. In Masroor a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, observed as follows: "Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence." She has also placed reliance upon the case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2018) 12 SC 129: "17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court." 14. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court." 14. She has also placed reliance on the case of State of Orissa vs. Mahimannanda Mishra (2018) SCC 516, Chandra Kishwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 wherein the principles for granting bail have been elaborated by the Apex Court in similar lines. There is a prima facie case against the accused persons as they were in conspiracy for a common cause i.e. for murder of the victims and the learned P.P. has vehemently objected to the petition for bail as it would adversely effect the interest of the prosecution in unraveling truth behind the gruesome incident of murder involved in this present case. 15. Submissions of both the counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. for the State have been considered. 16. The main issue involved in the instant case is that there is no remand of the accused persons after the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima. 17. On consideration of the matter it is clear that the learned PD&SJ has taken view that the case at hand falls within the territorial jurisdiction of either Dimapur or Peren and the matter may be placed before the appropriate court after examining the matter. Despite this, the SIT team remained obdurate and placed the matter before the CJM, Kohima for remand. On 16-04-2021 the learned CJM, Kohima remanded the accused Zeshito Swu and Vikaho Kappo to another 14 days. On 19-04-2021 when the co-accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito were sought to be remanded, the learned PD&SJ rejected the petition and also the remand order dated 16-04-2021 passed by the learned CJM, Kohima was nullified. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the accused has been lodged in the custody without remand w.e.f. 05-04-2021. Therefore, the accused are under illegal detention for more than 30 days from the date of hearing the bail application. 18. The provision of the Cr.PC is clear that the first remand maybe granted by any Magistrate whether the concerned Magistrate has the jurisdiction or not. Therefore, the accused are under illegal detention for more than 30 days from the date of hearing the bail application. 18. The provision of the Cr.PC is clear that the first remand maybe granted by any Magistrate whether the concerned Magistrate has the jurisdiction or not. Section 167 Cr.PC provides as under: (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) 1 the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; 1. subs. by Act 45 of 1978, S.13, for paragraph (a) (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 2. Ins. subs. by Act 45 of 1978, S.13, for paragraph (a) (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 2. Ins. by act 10 of 1990, S.2 (w.e.f. 19-2-1990) (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police." Section 56 Cr.PC also provides: "56. Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate or officer in charge of police station. A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station." From the above provision of law it is clear that the accused has to be forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction. 19. The second issue is that the power of remand is vested only upon Magistrate. Both Section 56 Cr.PC and Section 167 Cr.PC provides for remand by a competent Magistrate and not be a District Judge. Therefore, the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima was also without the sanction of the statutory law. 20. The cumulative reading of the order dated 05-04-2021 and also order dated 19-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima, it is observed that the investigation was instructed to inquire into the matter and intimate the Court as to which district has the territorial jurisdiction. The same order as ignored by the investigation and continued to place the matter before the CJM and PD&SJ of Kohima which resulted in passing of the order dated 16-04-2021 by the learned CJM and also the order dated 19-04-2021 by the learned PD&SJ nullifying the order passed by the learned CJM in view of the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima. Analyzing the whole process this Court has come to the conclusion that;- (i) the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima was clearly an illegal order not sanctioned by the statutory law i.e. the Criminal Procedure Code in terms of the provision of Section 56 Cr.PC, Section 57 Cr.PC and Section 167 Cr.PC. Power of remand is only invested with the Magistrate. The authority to remand and take cognizance of an offence is purely the function of the Magistrate and not the District Judge. The District Judge would be empowered to remand only after it has been committed by the Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.PC. Section 193 Cr.PC clearly provides that "except as otherwise expressly provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being enforced, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Court." The act of remanding an accused to judicial custody should be preceded by cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate before whom the report of the offence and the accused is brought. It therefore clearly ousts the jurisdiction of the District Judge of the authority to remand. There is an exception to this Rule; in special cases such as the NDPS Act, the POSCO Act and the PC Act etc the District Judge would have the power of remand if designated as Special Judge for such Acts. However, in the instant case, the matter relates only to regular offences under the IPC which is clearly forbidden of the District Judge to take cognizance as a Court of original jurisdiction. 21. Therefore the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima remanding the accused Ghosheto Swu and Lovito Sumi are illegal and without statutory sanction. 22. The fact that the investigation was directed to inquire and report as to which district would have the jurisdiction and non-compliance of the same order issued by the PD&SJ is clearly a contempt of Court. Such attitude and lack of professionalism should not be exhibited in a disciplined police force. It is reminded that in our adversarial justice delivery system the procedure laid down is a pillar stone for securing the proper dispensation of justice. Such attitude and lack of professionalism should not be exhibited in a disciplined police force. It is reminded that in our adversarial justice delivery system the procedure laid down is a pillar stone for securing the proper dispensation of justice. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of law enforcing agency and investigating agency to abide with the rules and procedures under the statutes. Thus situated, the order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima being illegal without statutory sanction, it leads to the undisputed conclusion that the accused persons are under illegal detention w.e.f. 05-04-2021 which is more than 30 days of illegal detention. The above discussions settles the issue of illegal detention on the statutory provision. 23. Coming to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the investigation, it is clear that Section 48 Cr.PC provides that the police can investigate cases out of the designated territorial jurisdiction. There is no clarity about the territorial jurisdiction of the State Crime Branch as we have no records or Notification to that effect before us, however, it may be presumed that the State Crime Branch has jurisdiction all over the State. The fact that the State Crime Branch has territorial jurisdiction all over the State does not confer territorial jurisdiction on any Sessions Division to try matters occurring in other Sessions Division. The argument is forwarded by the learned P.P. that it is the practice that the State Crime Branch investigate the matter and file charge sheet only after the completion of the investigation to the appropriate court having jurisdiction. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned P.P. this would create confusion as faced by us in the present case and should be avoided; we must comply with the provisions of law. It has already been enumerated that provision of Section 56 Cr.PC requires that the arrested person be sent before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. It has already been enumerated that provision of Section 56 Cr.PC requires that the arrested person be sent before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. Furthermore, Section 167 (2) Cr.PC provides that the magistrate to whom an accused if forwarded under this Section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case, or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary he may order the accused to be forwarded to a magistrate having such jurisdiction. 24. The reading of the above provisions makes it incumbent upon the investigation and the magistrate taking cognizance to forward the case to the appropriate magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. It is therefore, appropriate that the investigation or the court having no territorial jurisdiction should transmit the case to the court having territorial jurisdiction at the earliest opportune time to avoid legal issues with respect to territorial jurisdiction. 25. The learned CJM, Kohima should have referred the matter to the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction under Section 167 (2) Cr.PC and also the investigation should have followed the provisions of Section 56 Cr.PC by placing the matter before the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction. 26. In this matter, for the sake of clarification, the State has already notified territorial jurisdiction with respect to the District & Sessions Judges in the State which is reproduced below for the purpose of notifying both the investigation and the court who are in confusion on the issue for future compliance: "GOVERNMENT of NAGALAND DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE AND LAW KOHIMA NOTIFICATION Dated, Kohima the 5th March, 2015 NO. LIT/1253/2011 (Pt-II): In pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court direction dated 24.08.11 in C.A. No. 4101/2002, the State of Meghalaya Vrs Subhasis Chakraborty & Ors, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to notify the fixation of Cadre strength of the Sub-Ordinate Judiciary at 38(thirty eight) posts comprising of 14 (Grade-I posts, 11 grade-II posts and grade-III posts; and creation of 4 (four) Sessions Division within the cadre strength of the 38 posts indicated above as per details given below. Sl.NO. Name of the Session Division and HQ District to be covered by the Division 1. Sl.NO. Name of the Session Division and HQ District to be covered by the Division 1. Dimanpur Session Division HQ – Dimapur Dimapur, Peren, Mon 2. Kohima Session Division HQ-Kohima Kohima, Wokha, Phek 3. Tuensang Session Divion HQ-Tuensang Tuensang, Kiphire 4. Mokokchung Session Division HQ-Mokokchung Mokokchang, Zunheboto, Longleng 2. This has the approval of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-2/2013 dated 19.06.14, P&AR clearance dated 21.11.14 and Finance Department concurrence vide RFC/ESTT. No. 4/4 dated 24.02.15. Sd/- PANKAJ KUMAR Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland NO. LIT/1253/2011(Pt-II) Dated Kohima th March, 2015 Copy to:- 1. The Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Governor of Nagaland, Kohima 3. The Sr. P.S. to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Nagaland 4. The Additional Chief Secretary, P &AR Department 5. The Finance Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima 6. The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court Guwahati, Assam 7. The Advocate General, Nagaland 16 Central Lane 2nd Floor Bengali Market-New Delhi-110001 8. The Registrar, Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, Kohima 9. The Publisher, Nagaland Gazette, Kohima for publication 10. The Administrative Officer, Justice & Law Department 11. Copy for file No. LAW/JE-26/6/2012 12. Office copy 13. Guard file (NGAMJOK KONYAK) Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland Department of Justice & Law" 27. As seen from the above Notification it is clear that the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in the State of Nagaland has been notified by the Government as early as 5th of March, 2015 and it is a misfortune that the Notification which was brought out by the State Government has missed the Office of the concerned law enforcing agency in the State. 28. Coming to the merit of the bail petitions, the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Joshua Sheqi is in absolute correctness that the case of the accused persons have merit on the ground of illegal detention. It has elaborately been discussed above and this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused persons are under illegal detention with effect from 05-04-2021 till date. There is no legal remand of the accused persons with effect from 05-04-2021. 29. It has elaborately been discussed above and this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused persons are under illegal detention with effect from 05-04-2021 till date. There is no legal remand of the accused persons with effect from 05-04-2021. 29. I have also perused the CD produced by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the reading of the CD reflects that there are certain areas where suspicion can be drawn that the accused Ghosheto Swu is somehow knowledgeable to the incident., The conversation that has already been recorded above suggests to this conclusion. The complicity of the other three accused is sought to be established through Mobile Tower Location. The technicality of proof of this nature cannot be determined until such scientific proofs are brought before the Court to suggest that the accused persons were in the location of the incident. The reading of the tower location as produced in the CD reflects Ngwalwa, Punglwa, Duragapathor, Diphupar, Pimla Village, Singal Bosti. There is no reflection of Lamhainamdi the place of incidence. However, the learned P.P. submits that through the revelation and statement of the present accused persons another co-accused has been arrested. We are unaware of new evidences which have been recorded with the arrest of the accused. There could be incriminating evidences or there could be no incriminating evidences as against the present accused persons who are in the custody. However, opportunity to the investigation must be given for revealing the truth. 30. The fact remains that the accused persons are under judicial custody for about 30 days and the progress of the investigation is still going on with 60 days for the investigation remaining to complete the investigation. 31. The question before us is whether illegal detention as shown in the instant case would entitle the accused persons to go on bail. The defective investigation and the procedures adopted by the learned PD&SJ, Kohima, outrageous non-compliance of the direction of the Court's order by the investigation bringing about this critical issue is indeed regrettable. 32. The Apex Court has repeatedly reminded and ruled that defective investigation should not be the grounds for defeating the purpose of justice. Some of the celebrated judgments are C. Nuniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 , wherein, it has been ruled that: "Sections. 32. The Apex Court has repeatedly reminded and ruled that defective investigation should not be the grounds for defeating the purpose of justice. Some of the celebrated judgments are C. Nuniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 , wherein, it has been ruled that: "Sections. 155 to 159-Power and Conduct of Investigation by Police-Defective investigation-Ss.157, 174 and 173(8)-Investigation-Defective/Negligent investigation-Effect on adjudication, trial and appreciation of evidence-Duty of court-Defective investigation by earlier IOs being ignored by later IO carrying on proper investigation-Defective investigation by earlier IOs, held, not relevant and rightly discarded by subsequent IO-Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal-Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial-Legal obligation of court is to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth-If primacy is given to negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, faith and confidence of people in criminal justice administration would be eroded, (2010) 9 SCC 567 -H" Again in the case of Ram Bali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 598 , the Apex Court has held as under:- In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. In view of the aforesaid dictum, if any defect is found in the investigation, benefit of the same should not be extended to the appellant. We are of the opinion that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, but it can be stated that error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the appellant. If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful. Hence, the plea of counsel for the appellant is bereft of any merit and holds no grounds. 33. If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful. Hence, the plea of counsel for the appellant is bereft of any merit and holds no grounds. 33. From the above rulings of the Apex Court, it is established that defective investigation cannot defeat the prosecution case, if sufficient evidence is there for a conviction. Procedural errors cannot be amplified and defeat the ends of justice. 34. We are faced with a situation which is factually a little different from what has been discussed in the above two cases. We are faced with the issue of illegal remand and to answer whether illegal remand should take away the right of the investigation by granting bail to the accused persons in a serious offence that is murder. There are hardly any rulings of the Apex Court on the subject matter which is in pari materia with the facts of the present case. We have a case here where (i) a District Judge having no authority under the law remanding an accused and (ii) the investigation not complying with the orders of the Court to place the matter before the Court having jurisdiction. 35. The above two irregularities have occasioned for the accused to present the bail petition agitating their case on the ground of illegal detention. There is no necessity to again repeat that there is illegal detention. 36. In such a situation, the only thing we can do is remind ourselves that the procedure is only the handmaid of justice. It is imperative for us to understand that procedural lapses should not come in the way of substantial justice. 37. For the present matter to deny the investigation exhaustive and effective investigation when it has been exhibited by the investigation that through the revelations of the accused persons another co-accused has been arrested and further evidences are anticipated to be brought to light. It could be the denial of an opportunity to the prosecution for an effective investigation. Investigation should be given sufficient time to bring out the whole truth as the matter is serious in nature. The Court is also aware that only a month's time have passed under investigation. 38. The jurisdiction between the Dimapur and Peren Districts have not been determined till date. Investigation should be given sufficient time to bring out the whole truth as the matter is serious in nature. The Court is also aware that only a month's time have passed under investigation. 38. The jurisdiction between the Dimapur and Peren Districts have not been determined till date. Therefore, the matter may be tried before any of the two districts. Considering the recent incidence of violence within the Peren district resulting in arson and damaging of administrative vehicle, it would be in the interest of justice that the CJM, Dimapur should take cognizance of the matter. It may even result in the matter ending up in a Kangaroo Court. We have past experience of a rape case. 39. The principle that defective investigation should not be a ground to deny substantial justice is also extendable to our case at hand. The bail applications of the petitioners are therefore pre-matured and accordingly, stands rejected. 40. With respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, it is clear that the Dimapur Sessions Division has the jurisdiction. By the exercise of powers vested under Section 407 (2) of Cr.PC, it is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima/Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima shall immediately transmit the LCR with respect to G.R. 26/2021 corresponding to Kohima State Crime Branch Case No. 2/21 under Section 302/120B/188/34 IPC read with 251A/27(3) Arms Act to the Registry of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur. The learned CJM, Dimapur shall without delay consider the remand application forwarded by the investigation and do the needful since the accused persons cannot continue to remain under illegal detention. CD be returned to the I.O. of the case. With the above directions and orders, the bail applications stands disposed of.