Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Dayal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 897
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 48 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 656 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahesh Dayal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhavya Sahai, ,Brijesh Sahai(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., ,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.) Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate for the respondents and the learned A.G.A.
A writ of habeas corpus has been filed alleging illegal detention of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was registered against the petitioner followed by many other FIRs on same set of facts. The bail was granted to him in few cases but the petitioner has not been released. The petitioner is detained pursuant to B-Warrant though the detention pursuant to B-Warrant is not permissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of K.S.Muthuramalingam vs. State dated 01.07.2010 in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1151 of 2010. There a reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Dass Ram vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1987 SC 1333 has been given. It has been held that detention pursuant to P.T. Warrant is illegal if the accused has already been acquitted or granted bail. In the instant case, the petitioner has been granted bail in the criminal case registered against him, thus the said bail should have been taken to be bail in all other cases because allegation in all the FIRs subsequent to first are identical.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the counter affidavit so as the order passed by this Court to show admission of the A.S.G. regarding detention of the petitioner pursuant to B-Warrant. It is admitted by the learned A.G.A. that one cannot be detained pursuant to B-Warrant. A reference of the cases has been given where B-Warrant has been issued. Accordingly, the petitioner should be released.
The petition has been contested by the A.S.G. He submits that a reference of B-Warrant has been given ignoring as to how many cases have been registered against the petitioner and in which he has been arrested. At one stage, it was brought to to the notice of the Court that petitioner has obtained bail in around 50 cases. The aforesaid is coming out from the order dated 1.9.2020 passed by this Court. The report of other cases registered against the petitioner was also sought which has not been given to the Court.
It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that around 100 cases have been registered against the petitioner. Copy of all the FIRs has not been enclosed to show that it contains one and same allegation. Petitioner can be taken into custody pursuant to the Criminal cases lodged against him unless bail is granted in such cases.
Grant of bail in one case does not mean bail in all cases registered separately. If that would have been so, there was no reason for the petitioner to apply for bail in each case because according to him, bail has been granted in around 50 cases leaving others. In view of the above, it is not a case of illegal detention because petitioner is not in custody pursuant to the B-Warrant but in reference to number of cases lodged against him. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the petitioner.
We have considered the rival submission of parties and perused the record.
A writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only when it is a case of illegal detention. The petitioner was taken into custody pursuant to the criminal cases lodged against him. At one stage when bail was granted in one case, the petitioner could not be released in absence of completion of formalities. It is coming out from the order dated 15.10.20219 passed by this Court. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner to show compliance of required formalities for release. It is however a fact that petitioner is involved in more than 100 cases as per the statement of the counsel for the petitioner himself. It is alleged to be on one and same set of facts and allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to state that he has not filed a copy of all the FIRs lodged against the petitioner to verify that all the FIRs contain one and same allegation.
In view of the above, it could not be proved that petitioner has been implicated on same set of allegations. It is otherwise not a writ petition to challenge the FIRs but the writ petition for release alleging illegal detention. The main argument of learned counsel is that once bail is granted in one case, it is to be treated to be a bail in all other cases. The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted rather to be rejected summarily. No judgment on the issue or provision of law has been shown. Bail in one case cannot be taken to be bail in all other criminal cases registered separately. If bail in one case is to be taken as bail in all the cases than it could not be explained as to why petitioner applied for bail in 50 cases. Release even after the bail is subject to compliance of formalities of bail order. The petitioner has been arrested in other criminal cases or is in custody pursuant to a remand order in cases registered separately.
It is not shown that petitioner had completed all the formalities for release on bail in all the cases where he has been granted bail. The fact aforesaid is relevant for the reason that bail was granted to the petitioner earlier in one case, he could not be released in absence of completion of the formalities. It was completed later on but it has to be in all the cases where petitioner has been granted bail. It is not on record to show that required formalities for release after grant of bail were completed by the petitioner in all the cases where bail was granted. The petitioner has been taken into custody in reference to other cases where the bail has not yet been granted and not in pursuance to B-Warrant. The B-Warrant was issued in reference to five to seven cases and not for all. Even if the chart given by the petitioner is taken into consideration, it shows custody pursuant to other cases and not in pursuant to the B-Warrant in all cases.
In the light of aforesaid, the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of K.S.Muthuramalingam (supra) would have no application so as the judgment in the case of Ram Dass Ram (supra). There the issue was in regard to custody of the accused pursuant on P.T.Warrant. The custody pursuant to P.T.Warrant may not be proper after acquittal or bail but in the instant case, the petitioner has not been taken into custody pursuant to B-Warrant (P.T.) but pursuant to other pending cases.
The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ram Dass Ram (supra) would not apply to the facts of this case. The custody is not justified pursuant to the P.T. Warrant when accused has been acquitted or released on bail. The P.T.Warrants are issued for the production of the accused confined in jail in reference to other cases. It is issued for production of the accused thus cannot be used to keep the accused in custody even after the bail or acquittal. Thus the judgment of the Apex Court would apply to the cases where accused is kept in custody pursuant to P.T. Warrant despite his acquittal or bail. In this case, petitioner is in custody in reference to the cases registered against him.
In view of the discussion made above, we do not find it to be a case of illegal detention and accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021 Ashish Pd.