^^ •^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2822 of 2005 Petitioner Santu Das @ Bhakanaad, S/o Shri Bhuwan RBTO, aged about36 years, R/o ViUage Pouta, PoUce Station Maadir Hasoud, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Hoine Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) The CoUector, Raipur, DMtrict - Raipur (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Magistcate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) The Executive Magfatrate (Tahsildai^ Raipur, Distfc Raipur (C.G.) Shri Uday Netam (Talisildax), Ralpur, Distt Raipur(C.G.) SHO, PoHce Statfon, Mandir Hasbd, Distt Raipur (C.G.) WRITPETITONiUNDERARTIGLE2260FTHECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA (SB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for fhc petitioner. Sliri M. P, S. BIiatia, Depuly Govt. Advocate for fhe respondeuts No. 1 to 4 aad 6. Shri B. D. Ciuru, Advocate forthe respondent No.5. - ORDBRtoralt (Passed on this 9th day ofjuly, 2009) Heard. 1. The petitioner has ffled fhis petition clauning coinpensatioa of Rs. Five Lacs for his Ulegal detention in aa ofifence regtetered under ••&•• •• 'v . .• • ' • • . ' •: • section 151 of the Code of Cnminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.I. The petitioner further seeks quashiag of the Istg^a No. 18/52/05, pendiag before fhe respondent No.4 aad a direction for taking departmental action ^ainst the respondents No. 3 and 5. 2. Brieffacts, ia nutshell, are fhat on 31.3.2005 a report was lodged •^ agamst fhe petitioner iu Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur. The petitioner was taken iato custody aad Istgasa No. 18/52/05 under Sectioiis 151, 107 and 116 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. was filed before the respondentNo.4 Exccutiffe Magjstrate, Raipur. On -J.-.L Ls^ ^' ^ 31.3.2005, itself, fhe matter was registered, a preluiunaiy order under Sectionlll ofthe Cr.P.C. was passed aad the proceedings uader Section 116 of fhe Cr.P.C. was iEdtiated. The petittoner/accused was directed to fumish a persoual bond ia a Suia of Rs. 5,000/- and a bail bond in the Uke suin, as provided under Section 116(3) ofthe Cr.P.C., for mamteiniag fhe peace and tranquiUty. As the petitibner did not fumish the persoDal bondaad baU bond, he was sent to the jafl custody. On 4.4.2005 thebaB boad in a sum of Rs. 5000/- was fumished on behatf of the petitioner and accordingly, the release waraant was directed to be issued. Siace fhe Rresidiug Officer was busy in soiae otfaer work also, it was directed to place fhe matter on 5.4.2005 and on that day the releasewarrant was issued. Shri Rakesh Pandey, learaed counsel appearmg for fhc petitioner subauts that according to the provisions of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. no person cau be detaiaed ia custody for inore fhan 24 hours fboia fhe tiine of his arrest ualess his furfher detention is required. In fhe present case the petitioner was taken into custody on 31.3.2005 aad he was released on 5.4.2005. Further, the release warrant ought to have beea issued then and fhere on 4.4.2005 when the bail papers were fufaished. But, as fhe petitioner did not fuIfiU tiie iUegal demand of laoney, made by fhe CIerk of fhe respondent No.4, fhe release warraut was not issued on 4.4.2005, itself. Being ajgrieved, on fhe next day i.e. 5.4.2005, fhecounsel appearing for the petitioner inadea coxnplaint (Annexure P/2) to fhe Sub Divisional OfBcer. TUereafter, fhe release warrant was issued ori5.4.2005. The case of the petitkiner is tbat Iie was iltegaUy detained for about 24 hoursfinm'4.4.2005 to 5.4.2005, as in spite offumlshiag requteite baflbonds, fhe relcase warrantwas aot issued on 4.4.2005, iteelf. Thus, fhe petitioner is eatitted to compensation to fhe tune of Rs. Five Lacs aad the erriag officials imay be punished aftcr taking departmental action. SIui B. D. Guru, leacaedcounsel appearmg for fhe respondent No.5, the ftten Tahsildar aad Executive Magistrate, submits that after arrest bffUe petitioner, his relative Ram Narayan Jhaagde was informed by fhe police, which is evident finin the Panchaama (Annexure R-5/1). The Istgasa was ffled by the police on 31.3.2006. The matter was registered and fhe petitioner was directed to be released on bail on his fumislung a personal bond add a bafl bond ia a sum. of Rs. 5000/-. As the petitioner failed to fluiush the required bail papers, he was senf to the jaU custody. On 4.4.2005 bail papers were funushed on behalf of fhe petitioner, he was produced fix>m fhe jaU aad fhe bail was accepted. Leamed eounsel further submits that the rcspondent No.5 was also busy on special duty ia rcgard to the enquiry ia coiuiectibn with paddy puTGhase, fherefore, the laatter Was agaia taken up on 5.4.2005 aad fhe release warrant was issued. Thus, theie was no delay in release of the petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, learued counsel appeariag for fhe respondents/State subuuts fhat iu fact fhere was no de]ay in release of fhe pettdoner. Had the pefitioner submitted personal bond aad baU boud on 31.3.2005, he would have been released on the same day aad fhere would not have been any reason for sendiug him to fhe jafl Gustody. The requisite bail papers were subimtted on 4.4.2005 aud lookiag to the procedural formaltdes, -fhe release warraat could be signed by the Executive Magistrate oa J 8. the veiy next day i.e. 5.4-.2005 oiily. Ttds proGeduTal delay ofoae day raay happen ia normal course. Learaed eounsel furfher subxnits that after arrest of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, he was produced before the Executive M^isteabs and since fhen, fhe custodyofthe petitioner, tiU lus release on5.4.2005, was underthe orders of the M^istrate. Thus, the contention of fhe petitioner is not sustamable fhat his custody under Section 151 ofthe Cr.P.C., beyond 24 hoiu-s was aa Ulegal detention. I have heaid learned counsel appearing for fhe partics aud pcrused tfa.e pleadiags and documents appended thereto. A report against the petitioner was lodged in fhe Police Station, Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur on 31.3.2005, which was registered as Istgasa No. 18/52/05 iinder Sections 1S1, 107 and 116 (3) ofthe Cr.P.C. Section 107 ofthe Cr.P.C. providesthatwhen an Executive Magistrate receives iaformation that any person is likely to coimaut a breach of Ihe peace or distiirb the pubUc tranquility or to do aay wrongful act fhat may probablyoccasion a breacli of the peace or disturb the public tFanquiUty, he inay require such person to show cause why he should not bc ordered to execute a bond for kceping the peaGe. Section 116 (3) ofthcCr.P.G. provides fhat the Magistrate inay direct such person to execute a bond with orwithout sureties forkeeping fhie peace. It is evident fiom a bare perusal of fhe order dated 31.3.2005 (Aaaexure R/3) fhat fhe petitioner was brought bcfore fhc Executive Magistrate. The Istgasa was filed and the inatter was registered. The petitioner was dirccted to fumish a personal bond and a surety bond in a sumofRs. 5000/- for keeping thfi peace aad-tranquilily. It appears, as fhe petitioner did not funush thie bail -J: \' Thakur bonds, he was sent to fhe jail cystoc|j|. Thereafter, on 4.4.2005 when bail papcrs were submitted, fhe release warraat was issued on 5.4.2005. It is clear fiuin fhe order sheets (AnnexyTe R/3) that the case against the petitioner has been closed on 5.10.2007 on eoiapletion of six months period fium fhe date of passing of the preUmiuaiy order. 9. Sub-section (1) ofSection 151 ofthe Cr.P.C. provides that a poUce officer may acrcst a persdn, kuowiag of a design to coiamit any cogmzabk oflFence, without orders firoiu a Magistrate and wifhout a warraat Sub-section (2) ofSection 151 offhe Cr.P.C. provides fhat uo person arrested under sub-sectton (1) shall be detained ia custody for a period exceeding twenly-four hours fiiom. the time of 1aia arrest unless his lurth.er detention. is required or aufhorized uader any ofher provisions of this Code or of any other law for fhe tuae being ia force. 10. It is not a case wliere the police have kept the petitioner ia detention beyond twenty-four hours. The detention offhe petitioner fi-om 31.3.2005 to 5.4.2005 was under the orders ofthe Magistrate. It is further not a case of undue delay or arbitrariness. 11. In view of fhe foregoing, I do uot find aay substance ia the writ petition. The writ petitiou is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. SdA ; SatishK.Agnihotri Judge