Person Under Detention To Be Released if No Order Passed Within 24 Hours Authorizing His Detention: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Must Read

Madras HC Allows Teacher’s Petition for Incentive Increment on the Basis of Acquired Higher Degree

A teacher in a minority-run educational institute was denied a set of incentive increment owing to her acquiring a...

SC: HC Not to Re-Examine Adequate and Fair Disciplinary Actions Under Art. 226 on Appeal

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 cannot act as an...

SC: Transfer of Cases Under S.406 of CrPC to be Invoked Only in Exceptional Cases

A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that the transfer of trial from one state to another reflects...

Jharkhand HC Disposes of Writ Petition Filed to Fill up Vacant Seats Reserved for Govt. School Teachers

A writ petition was filed to fill up the vacant seats which were kept reserved for Govt. School Teachers...

Bombay HC Pursues Case Regarding the Nomination of Sole Arbitrator to Settle Partnership Dispute

The High Court heard the matter where disputes had arisen between the parties from their partnership deed. The Court...

Madras HC Directs Agriculturist to Pay Insurance Premium Amount Payable Under the PMFBY Scheme

The Madras High Court on 27 November 2020, directed the petitioner to pay the insurance premium amount payable under...

Follow us

The Madhya Pradesh High Court heard the matter where the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in nature of Habeas Corpus and contented that no Order had been passed since his detention. Thus, the Court directed that the Petitioner shall be free to file a bail application under the provisions of the CrPC.

Background

The Petitioner’s Ashram was demolished due to an allegation of illegal construction and on the same date itself, he was detained along with his disciples. He contended that his six disciples were already released on 09.11.2020, but he had not yet been released and no Order was passed in the matter.

It was also stated that as per Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is required that if a person was under detention beyond 24 hours, then the Order must be passed to authorize his detention. The issue, in this case, was that no such Order had been passed in the present matter, a revision was preferred before the District Judge, Indore on 11.11.2020. Some Orders had been passed earlier in respect of his detention, and the revision was disposed of.

Submissions before the Court

Petitioner’s Submissions

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Chhabra had submitted that no copy of the Order was given to the Petitioner and after knowing the contents of the Order, the Petitioner had come to know that he had been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for his release to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It had been further stated that it was on record that the bank guarantee was prepared immediately in the matter, however, the authorities were not accepting it.

He had further argued that subsequently, a First Information Report was lodged on 12.11.2020 at Police Station-Gandhi Nagar in respect of the incident involving offences punishable under Sections 56/34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was also stated that the F.I.R. was an afterthought to circumvent the Petitioner’s release under Section 151 of the CrPC, 1973.

Heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of D.K. Basu v/s The State of West Bengal (1997)1 SCC 416. It had also been argued by the learned counsel that in the case of, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed to release the Petitioner therein.

Respondent’s Submissions

Learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, had vehemently argued before this Court that the authorities were ready to accept the bank guarantee, however, it was not submitted, and therefore, the Petitioner was not released. He had asserted that so far as the criminal cases against the Petitioner were concerned, the CrPC provides for the grant of bail and a Writ Petition like Habeas Corpus was thus not maintainable in the present case facts and circumstances.

Consideration by Court

After the record was perused and the learned counsel for the parties had been heard, the Court had a considered opinion that the present case required a detailed reply and the same be filed positively within four weeks.

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav learned Additional Advocate General had also ensured this Court that he would make the case-diary available before the learned Judge and service of notice to the complainant shall also be done by the office of Advocate General through the Investigating Officer in respect of the bail applications.

The Registry of this Court had informed this Court that in the District Court, the Judicial Officers shall be available tomorrow, and therefore, the Petitioner shall be able to submit his bail application in respect of such other criminal cases and the bail application of the petitioner shall be decided on the same day by the law.

Court’s Directions

The Hon’ble Court stated that so far as the prayer for grant of interim relief was concerned, the Petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- and he had prepared a bank guarantee also, therefore, the State was directed to accept the bank guarantee and to release the Petitioner.

It was further directed that in the concerned other criminal cases, the Petitioner shall be free to file a bail application under the provisions of the CrPC. It was also made clear that the release of the Petitioner in the proceedings under Section 151 of the CrPC, 1973 shall certainly be subject to other such criminal cases. In case, the Petitioner was not required to be detained in any other criminal case, he shall be released forthwith.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras HC Allows Teacher’s Petition for Incentive Increment on the Basis of Acquired Higher Degree

A teacher in a minority-run educational institute was denied a set of incentive increment owing to her acquiring a higher degree. The aided private...

SC: HC Not to Re-Examine Adequate and Fair Disciplinary Actions Under Art. 226 on Appeal

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the High Court under Article 226 cannot act as an appellate authority and re-examine the...

SC: Transfer of Cases Under S.406 of CrPC to be Invoked Only in Exceptional Cases

A Single Bench of the Supreme Court held that the transfer of trial from one state to another reflects on the credibility of the...

Jharkhand HC Disposes of Writ Petition Filed to Fill up Vacant Seats Reserved for Govt. School Teachers

A writ petition was filed to fill up the vacant seats which were kept reserved for Govt. School Teachers in terms of Rule 9(i)...

Bombay HC Pursues Case Regarding the Nomination of Sole Arbitrator to Settle Partnership Dispute

The High Court heard the matter where disputes had arisen between the parties from their partnership deed. The Court directed that, in light of...

Madras HC Directs Agriculturist to Pay Insurance Premium Amount Payable Under the PMFBY Scheme

The Madras High Court on 27 November 2020, directed the petitioner to pay the insurance premium amount payable under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima...

Karnataka HC Releases Accused that Promised Marriage and Obtained Consent for Coitus

The Karnataka High Court granted bail on several conditions to the accused who had promised to marry the victim and obtained her consent for...

Supreme Court Holds in Favour of Narendra Modi in Election Petition Filed by Ex-BSF Jawan

This Appeal to the Supreme Court was filed to decide whether the Appellant had the locus standi to file an election petition before the...

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -