IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITON (C) No. ¥503 / 2009 PETITIONER : Kripal Das, / S/o Lachchiram, aged about 83 years, R/o Ward N0. 4 Pendra Road, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS : /1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.'G.) . District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) . Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspui‘ (C.G.) Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . 6% 2 12/10/2009 reiterating thevsame what was mentioned in the earlier order dated 28/02/2009 (Annexure P-4). 2. On consideration, after hearing, Iearned coUnseI appearing for the parties, perusing the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that there is no proper application of mind by the authorities. The respondent State has filed a copy of crime register (Annexure R-1), which indicates the date of detention of the petitioner, reasons for detention, name of the petitioner as at serial No.45 indicating detention was under MISA, first column of the crime register and thereafter in the column of offences and section it is stated as 107, 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.P.C.) and at the last column of remarks it is clearly stated that the detention was on account of opposition to the State. On further reading, it appears that the petitioner was produced before the Court on 3/12/1975 and thereafter he continued in detention till 2/1/1976 as per the Annexure R-A filed by the State. One more section has been added i.e. section 151 of Cr.P.C., which provides for arrest of him to prevent the commission of cognizable offence. Sub section (2) of. Section 151 of the Code, 1973 provides that no person arrested under sub section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest ' unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force. It is very clear that thearrest/detention of the petitioner under Section 151 cannot continue for a period exceeding twentyn \ iv} i i i‘ 55$ four hours unless he is required or authorised and other provisions of the Code or’of any other iaw for the time being in foroe. Thus, under said provision, if the petitioner was detained for more than 24 hours, there must be under some other provisions of the code or any other iaw in force. it is not clear either from the submission o‘r from the return filed by the State. 3 Upon perusal of the crime report’there is no mention about the production of the petitioner before the ’Court within 24 hours or immediately after 24 hours from the date of arrest i.e. 29/1 1/1975. in case of application of other offences under Section 107 and 163 of the Code, 1973, the petitionerrwas produced on 3/12/75. There I is no further mention or documents have been produced to explain, why he remained in the custody till 2/1/1976. Section 107 of the Code, 1973 does not provide for detention or arrest except execution of a bond for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the entire exercise is to be done by the Executive Magistrate to maintain peace or the public tranquility. Section 116 (3) of the Code prescribes for enquiry asto truth of information. Sub section (3) of Section 116 provides that before completion of enquiry under sub section (1) immediate measures or necessary for the prevention of a. breach of the peace disturbance of a public tranquility or the commission of any offence . or the public safety, may, for reason to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 1 1 1 has been made to execute a bond with or'without sureties, for ; I keeping the peace or maintaining goof behaviour until the t 4 / \onclusion of the enquiry and further may detained in custody until \x 2 / t, $1 ‘ ‘t 7'14 4 such bond is executed. No document's has been produced to indicate that there is any defauit on the part of the petitioner to execute the bond therefore, the was kept under custody tiii 2/1/1976 under provisions of Section 111(3) ofthe Cr.P.C. Moreover, apart from the above stated provisions, which have been made applicable to the case of the petitioner particulariy in view of the fact that the petitioner has been detained from 29/1 1/75 till Jan. 76. it does not appear to be probable that he was detained simply under provisions of Section 151, 107 or 116(3) of the Code, 1973 that too for want of necessary documents. The crime register clearly mentioned the detention and was under MISA and further last column for opposition to theGovernment. Thus, i am no hesitation in holding that the officers concerned i.e. the Magistrate, Bilaspur has not applied his mind properly to the facts of the Case and the provisions of law, which has been informed in the arrest of the petitioner before passing order in casual way since there was no detention under MISA. Thus he was not entitled to any relief under notification dated (Annexure P/1) accordingly, the order dated 12/10/2009 (Annexure P/7) in respect of the petitioner is quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to examine all the facts, if necessary, to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after application of mind pass the order in accordance With law as early as pOSSIble preferably Within a period ' of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Ashék