Court dismisses habeas corpus petitions, upholding legality of detention under valid remand orders

Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

Vimal Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Communication of grounds of arrest under Section 50(1) Cr. P. C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Validity of subsequent remand orders under Sections 167, 209(b), and 309 Cr. P. C.
3. Issuance of writ of habeas corpus based on initial illegality of detention.
4. Jurisdiction and authority of committing Magistrate and Sessions Judge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Communication of Grounds of Arrest:
- The petitioners, Vimal Kumar Sharma and Sanjai Bahal, claimed that they were not informed of the grounds of their arrest, violating Section 50(1) Cr. P. C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- The court examined the object of Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) Cr. P. C., emphasizing that the grounds of arrest must be communicated "as soon as may be," not necessarily immediately.
- The court considered affidavits from police officers stating that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioners. The affidavits supporting the petitions were found insufficient as they were based on legal advice or records, not personal knowledge.
- The court concluded that the grounds of arrest were communicated to both petitioners, rejecting their contention of non-compliance with Section 50(1) Cr. P. C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

2. Validity of Subsequent Remand Orders:
- The court analyzed whether a writ of habeas corpus could be issued if there were initial violations of the law during arrest, but subsequent valid remand orders were passed.
- The court cited precedents, including Federal Court and Supreme Court rulings, stating that habeas corpus proceedings focus on the legality of detention at the time of the hearing, not at the time of arrest.
- The court found that both petitioners were detained under valid remand orders passed by competent Magistrates and Sessions Judges under Sections 167, 209(b), and 309 Cr. P. C.
- It was held that subsequent valid remand orders cure any initial illegality in detention.

3. Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus:
- The court discussed whether habeas corpus could be issued based on initial illegality in arrest or detention.
- It was emphasized that habeas corpus proceedings address the legality of detention at the time of the hearing. If valid remand orders exist, the writ cannot be granted.
- Reference was made to the Supreme Court's view that subsequent valid orders of remand cannot be invalidated by initial procedural defects.

4. Jurisdiction and Authority of Committing Magistrate and Sessions Judge:
- The court examined the jurisdiction of Magistrates and Sessions Judges in passing remand orders.
- It was clarified that under Section 209(b) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate's remand order remains valid until the conclusion of the trial.
- The court overruled a contrary view that fresh remand orders were required once the trial commenced under Section 309 Cr. P. C.
- It was held that the committing Magistrate's order under Section 209(b) Cr. P. C. authorizing detention until the conclusion of the trial is valid and sufficient.

Conclusion:
- The court dismissed both habeas corpus petitions, finding no merit in the claims of non-communication of arrest grounds or invalidity of subsequent remand orders.
- It was concluded that the petitioners' detention was lawful under valid remand orders, and any initial procedural defects did not warrant their release through habeas corpus.