IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1185 of 2010 AMARDIP SAH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 18.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and to release him from his illegal arrest in connection with Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2010. The plea which has been taken by the petitioner in support of the contention is that his arrest and confinement is illegal. It has been stated that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.102 of 2010 on 18.7.2010 at 5.30 P.M. which is apparent from the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, as contained in Annexure-4 but, he was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 21.7.2010 at 3.45 A.M. The petitioner immediately, on his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in violation of the provisions of Sub-Clause(2) of article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed an application for his release but, no release order was passed by the Magistrate. Time was allowed to the Superintendent of Police, Munger for filing his show cause but, till date the application of the petitioner has not been disposed of and the petitioner is continuing in custody, which is completely illegal and in violation of the provisions of Constitution of India as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred to above. 2 Another accused of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.102 of 2010, namely, Sahin Raza @ Chintu had filed a Criminal Writ Application vide Cr.W.J.C.No.904 of 2010 taking the similar plea, in which counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Munger admitting that the petitioner along with another accused were arrested on 18.7.2010 at 5.30 P.M. but he was produced before the Magistrate on 21.7.2010 at 3.45 P.M. Non production of the petitioner within 24 hours of his arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court was not explained. The Superintendent of Police could not give any reason for non-production of the petitioner within the time required and provided under Sub-Clause (2) of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled law that a person who has been arrested without warrant cannot be detained for a longer period, than under all the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order under Section 167, exceed twenty four hours, exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court. Considering all these facts, the detention of accused Sahin Raza alias Chintu, another accused of the same case had earlier been quashed and a direction had been issued to release him forthwith. However, it was also directed that the investigating agency shall be at liberty to investigate the case and if evidence is produced 3 regarding involvement of the petitioner in crime, he can be re- arrested or proceeded with, in accordance with law. In the same terms, this application is allowed since the present petitioner’s confinement is also illegal and in violation of the provision of the two provisions, referred to above. Order keeping the petitioner in confinement is quashed with a direction to release him forthwith but with a liberty to the investigating agency that in case there is sufficient evidence regarding petitioner’s involvement in the case, he can be re-arrested or proceeded with, in accordance with law. Anil/ ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)