Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 596 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Subhash Bishnoi

2024-04-15

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Learned counsel for the State submits that certified copy of the impugned order has already been filed, therefore, in such view, defect pointed out by the Office stands removed. 2. State by way of instant petition has impugned order dated 12th April, 2024 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metro-II, directing conditional release of accused respondents, declaring non-compliance of provision of Section 57 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.10/2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State urged that Judicial Magistrate passed impugned Order granting conditional release of accused respondents in a serious matter, on erroneous notion of provisions of law; learned Magistrate erroneously presumed arrest of accused respondents w.e.f. 2nd April 2024 whereas indeed arrest was made by SOG on 3rd April 2024 in between 3:20 PM - 5:42 PM and accused respondents were produced before the Judicial magistrate on next succeeding date on 4th April 2024 i.e. within a period of 24 hours in compliance of the mandate of Section 57 Cr.PC; secondly, even if detention of accused respondents is held as illegal with SOG beyond 24 hours, when accused were produced before the Magistrate on 4th April, 2024, the Judicial Magistrate allowed prayer of remand of SOG for a period of 4 days, hence thereafter custody of accused respondents with SOG can not be held to be illegal. Therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order is not liable to be sustained and warrants interference by this Court to prevent abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:- 1. Mahesh Chand & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1986 Rajasthan 58], 2. Satyaveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3699/2014, & Farheern Tabssum & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No.4256/2014, decided on 03.12.2014 3. Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 10 SCC 445 ]. 4. Learned counsel for the State contends that the order has not been implemented so far and accused respondents have not been released from custody, therefore, he prays to stay the operation of the impugned order as an interim relief. 5. petition No.4256/2014, decided on 03.12.2014 3. Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 10 SCC 445 ]. 4. Learned counsel for the State contends that the order has not been implemented so far and accused respondents have not been released from custody, therefore, he prays to stay the operation of the impugned order as an interim relief. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the FIR No.10/2024 has been registered at PS SOG, wherein allegations are that number of candidates had obtained the question papers in advance and used unfair means to succeed the competitive exam for the recruitment of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander in Rajasthan Police conducted by RPSC in the year 2021. During the course of investigation in the FIR, accused respondents were, arrested after interrogation and till now near about 44 persons have been found suspected and investigation is under way. Therefore, release of accused respondents, at this stage would seriously prejudiced the case of prosecution. 6. Heard. 7. Issue notice. 8. On behalf of accused-respondents No.4, Ms. Manju Bishnoi and No.6, Mr. Rakesh, respective counsels have put in appearance and accept notices. 9. Let notices be issued to other accused-respondents. 10. Learned counsel appearing for accused respondents No.4 and 6, vehemently opposed the prayer for interim relief as prayed by the State counsel and argued that since accused-respondents were picked by SOG from the Rajasthan Police Academy on 2nd April 2024, hence the period of their arrest starts from that date itself, therefore, producing accused respondents on 4th April 2024 at about 3:00 PM before the Judicial Magistrate is certainly, after expiry of the period of 24 hours, therefore, the detention of accused respondents with SOG for more than 24 hours becomes illegal in view of Section 57 Cr.P.C. Hence, the Judicial Magistrate acted well within his jurisdiction allowing conditional release of accused respondents. It has been submitted that staying the operation of impugned order, would frustrate the legal and fundamental rights of accused respondents. 11. Learned counsel for accused respondents, in furtherance to their contentions, submitted that pursuant to the impugned Order, release orders have been issued, although it is true that accused respondents have not been released physically so far. 12. It has been submitted that staying the operation of impugned order, would frustrate the legal and fundamental rights of accused respondents. 11. Learned counsel for accused respondents, in furtherance to their contentions, submitted that pursuant to the impugned Order, release orders have been issued, although it is true that accused respondents have not been released physically so far. 12. Having considered rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties, and following the exposition of law, as propounded by the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Mahesh Chand (Supra), this Court prima facie finds that the Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order, on the basis that the detention of accused respondents with SOG exceeding for a period of 24 hours from their arrest is amount to their illegal detention and non-compliance of mandate of Section 57 Cr.P.C., therefore, and on that count, conditional release order has been passed. It is not in dispute that when accused respondents were produced by SOG before the Judicial Magistrate on 4th April, 2024, the Judicial Magistrate passed the order of remand allowing custody of accused respondents to SOG for a further period of four days for further investigation. Accused respondents did not claim their illegal detention with SOG for more than 24 hours, on the date i.e. 4th April, 2024, when they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, again the period of remand was extended for a period of further four days, it means upto 12.04.2024. Therefore, on the date of passing the impugned order, the custody of accused respondents can not be held to be illegal. Accused respondents have not been released on regular bail. Undeniably, accused respondents have not been released from custody and are still behind the bars till passing of this order. 13. In such facts and circumstances, this Court is of prima facie opinion that if the impugned order is allowed to given effect to, the accused respondents would be released from custody whereas accused respondents have not applied for release on regular bail; therefore, it would be in fitness of things and balance of interest of both parties can be maintained by staying the operation of impugned order in the meanwhile, however it is hereby observed that staying the operation of impugned order will not adversely affect the rights of accused respondents to apply for regular bail. 14. List the matter on 1st May 2024. 15. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this Order to the concerned Magistrate forthwith.