1980 (2) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the police, prison officials and the magistracy that they wrote letters to the Hon. Chief Justice in desperation. The above habeas corpus petition is a legal 2. Incarnation of those letters. Sensitized by the prima facie hideous facts disclosed the court directed a rule to issue. Somehow, despite several adjournments the State did not even furnish the basic facts about the imprisonment of the petitioners, the offences for which they were kept in judicial custody, for how long and at what stage were the proceedings and the like. This gross indifference of the Bihar State in regard to citizens deprived of their liberty for indefinite and prolonged spells is an unconscionable aspect of that State's unconcern for human rights. Indeed,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ensorious observations into hint at action against the defaulting officers, the scene began to change and at the hearing on February 25, 1980, the Superintendent of the Jail and the District Magistrate who were m a sense vicariously responsible for the custodial condition of the petitioners appeared in person and prayed to be excused for the default or delay in furnishing vital information about these unfree individuals. Fuller facts have been furnished by the Superintendent, Central Jail, sufficient to enable us to discover the incontestable illegality of the detention and to direct the release on bail of the petitioners. 4. Law is what law does and not what law writes in the books beyond the reach of those behind bars. In this perspectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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. 5. In Maneka Gandhi's case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 and a crop of cases thereafter this Court has emphasised the need for fair procedure ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there is justification for keeping the petitioners in custody. 7. Section 167(2) which we have extracted above, empowers the magistrate to authorise the detention of an accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. More importantly, there is a precious interdict protective of personal freedom which states that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person exceeding 90 days in grave cases and 60 days in lesser cases. "On the expiry of the said period... the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail...." Not 60 days but six years have passed in the present case: not 90 days but 1900 days or more have passed; and yet, the magistra....