TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Unlawful Custody: Court Grants Bail After Finding Remand Orders Lacking Specificity and Compliance with Procedure.</h1> <h3>Rajesh Misra Versus Uttar Pradesh</h3> Rajesh Misra Versus Uttar Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of remand orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. Compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Absence of specific remand orders on certain dates.4. Validity of detention without a specific remand order.5. Interpretation of Sections 209 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.6. Application of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Remand Orders Passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:The revision was filed against the remand orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on various dates, which were declared illegal. It was argued that the orders were passed in a mechanical way without applying the mind, and did not contain directions for remand in jail custody. The court noted that on 14-9-1993 and 28-9-1993, no remand orders were passed, and the custody of the accused was illegal for those periods.2. Compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The committal order under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12-10-1993 did not comply with Section 207, as necessary papers were not supplied to the revisionist. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements to ensure a fair trial.3. Absence of Specific Remand Orders on Certain Dates:It was argued that there were no remand orders on 14-9-1993, 28-9-1993, 19-10-1993, 26-10-1993, and 5-11-1993. The court found that the absence of specific remand orders on these dates rendered the custody of the accused illegal. The court emphasized that signing the warrant of remand without a specific order was insufficient.4. Validity of Detention Without a Specific Remand Order:The court referred to several cases, including Khatri v. State of Bihar and Madhu Limaye v. State, where it was held that detention without a specific remand order is illegal. The court reiterated that the remand order must not be mechanical and must be passed with the application of mind.5. Interpretation of Sections 209 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The court examined the provisions of Sections 209 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that under Section 209, the Magistrate must remand the accused to custody until the commitment is made and during the trial. Under Section 309, the court must remand the accused by a warrant whenever the trial is postponed. The court emphasized that merely signing the warrant sheet is not enough, and a specific order of remand is required.6. Application of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India:The court emphasized that the interpretation of statutory provisions must be in line with the constitutional safeguards provided under Articles 14, 21, and 22, which ensure the protection of personal liberty. The court held that the provisions of Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, and an order of remand must be passed to justify the detention of the accused.Conclusion:The court concluded that the absence of specific remand orders on certain dates rendered the custody of the accused illegal. The revision was allowed, and the accused was admitted to bail. The court directed that the accused be admitted to bail on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
TaxTMI 