Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is further averred and contended that the Superintendent of Police being the sponsoring authority under the Preventive Detention Act informed to the detaining authority-the District Magistrate about the involvement of the petitioner in more than 10 crimes registered by police besides the one pending at Proddutur Forest Ranger viz., Crime No.117 of 2015 of Chennur Police Station, Crime No.254 of 2015 of Duvvur Police Station, Crime No.28 of 2016 of Kodur Police station, crime No.72 of 2016 of Khajipet Police Station, Crime No.127 of Khajipet Police Station, Crime No.169 of 2016 of T.Sundupalli Police Station, Crime No.12 of 2017 of Veeraballi Police Station, Forest offence OR 75/16-17 of Proddutur Forest Range, crime No.87 of 2017 of Khajipet Police Station, Crime No.378 of 2017 of R.Kodur Police Station and Crime No.148 of 2017 of Chitvel Police Station, which are referred and covered by the preventive detention order of the Collector-cum- District Magistrate in the Reference No.C1/227/M/18, dated 24.04.2018. The order of the Collector speaks from the first line itself of the Superintendent of Police YSR Kadapa has placed 1980(2) SCC 559 2014(16) SCC 623 before the District Magistrate about the information supra. It is further contended that though section 267 Cr.P.C. is an enabling Provision, the power is vested in the criminal court to issue production warrant where accused is involved in other crimes and for that purpose the investigating agency not filed memos before the competent court to issue P.T.warrant for production of the pre-trial prisoner supra in all other cases and the investigating agencies have been deliberately adopting the modus operandi of filing applications under Section 267 Cr.P.C. selectively only after bail granted in such crimes.

12. The learned Senior counsel Sri T.Niranjan Reddy for petitioner while reiterating the above contentions in the course of hearing arguments, drawn various provisions particularly Sections 31, 428, 167, 42, 46, 436 to 439 and 267 of Cr.P.C. and placed reliance on the expression referred supra among others of this Court and of the Apex Court.

13. Whereas in opposing the petitions, it is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the custody contemplated even for the purpose of regular bail is only under what is provided by physical production as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. and otherwise there is a remedy for anticipatory bail if any and having filed the non- sustainable regular bail application before the learned Sessions Judge and even returned, instead of representing, hastily came to this Court in filing the petitions, that too having knowledge of he is in several crimes involved, for nothing even prevented him being accused in the crimes to ask the learned Magistrate by filing petitions or memos as contemplated by Section 267 Cr.P.C. and having not resorted to do so, he is not justified in making a blame on the police officials including on the Superintendent of Police who is only the monitoring authority and not the investigating officer practically as can be seen and from mere furnishing of information he collected from all police stating to submit to the District Magistrate is different to attribution of knowledge to cause file memos by concerned investigating officers and thereby sought for dismissal of the petitions and else to pass any other appropriate orders.

39. Now coming to consider whether the accused is entitled to any period of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.?

Even so far as the entitlement of benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C., it is not automatic without actual remand to the case on hand from the physical production under Section 167 Cr.P.C. or on production as per P.T. Warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. However, the officers if deliberately withheld from production knowingly, then only depending upon the facts as observed in Tupakula Appa Rao referring to the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Shabbu of 1982 (supra), from each case to consider depending upon its own facts.

41. From the above, coming to the facts on hand, having mentioned, being the Sponsoring Authority under the Preventive Detention to issue proceedings by the District Magistrate on 24.04.2018 by referring the facts of the petitioner is involved in 9 cases, excluding the forest offence detailed supra, he should have been from that knowledge, that too having the equal powers of the SHO as per Section 36 Cr.P.C. and as also held of his obligation and duty in this regard by the expression of this Court in K. Krishna Reddy supra, should have been atleast directed the S.H.O. concerned in those cases to obtain P.T. warrants under Section 267 Cr.P.C. and produce the accused in the concerned crimes before concerned Magistrate Court for judicial remand, so that the accused/petitioner should not loose the benefit of getting the remand period to be counted under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and equally for any future set off of the period of remand in the event of finding guilty and from conviction and sentence of imprisonment, leave about any claim of entitlement or not of concurrent running or consecutive running as the case may be under Section 31 Cr.P.C.