IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1233 of 2010 WITH CR. WJC No.1246 of 2010 ------ 7 18.3.2011 Nirjesh Singh @ Naga Singh, S/o Sri Swarat Singh, R/o Village- Mokama Moldiya Tola, P.S. Mokama, District Patna …. Petitioner in both the cases VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Inspector General of Prisoner, Bihar, Patna 3. The Jail Superintendent, Barh Jail, Patna ….. Respondents in both the cases ------ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials on record. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same person seeking issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus and for setting the petitioner free and out of custody on the ground that custody of the petitioner was illegal for some time after he was granted bail on 18.1.2009 and 27.4.2009 in Barh PS Case No.182 of 2001 and 99 of 2002 respectively. 3. Annexure-1 to CrWJC No.1233 of 2010 and a similar order which is Annexure-1 in the other writ - 2 - petition, show that petitioner had earlier preferred CrWJC No.388 and 389 of 2010 and in those cases it was admitted that he was presently in Barh jail in connection with Sessions Trial No.263 of 2008 arising out of Mokama PS Case No.115 of 2004 lodged for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna. The only prayer in those writ petitions was for a direction that the petitioner be produced before the court of learned CJM, Sheikhpura in relation to Barbigha P.S. Case No.94/2006 and before the court of learned CJM, Begusarai for remand in other cases such as Barauni Refinery PS Case No.473 of 2003 and Begusarai PS Case No.169 of 2003. On objection of the State counsel that such a prayer should have been made before the court below, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should make an application before the court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Barh for remand and production etc. in other cases in the court of CJM, Sheikhpura/ CJM, Begusarai. Such an application was required to be made within three weeks. - 3 - 4. From the supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner it is clear that on 25.10.2010 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Session Court in Sessions Trial No.263 of 2008 and the order-sheet of that case annexed as Annexure-A further shows that on 12.1.2011 the defence counsel i.e. counsel for the accused petitioner made a statement that his application filed on 25.10.2010 had become infructuous and, therefore, it was not being pressed. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the petitioner is presently in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No.263 of 2008 since much before grant of bail to him in two cases in January and April, 2009, we are unable to appreciate how the custody of the petitioner is illegal and without the authority of law. Such a plea is being raised upon no new facts arising after 27.9.2010, the date of the order contained in Anenxure-1. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is evident that the grievance of illegal custody is a stale grievance to the effect that at some - 4 - point of time the custody of the petitioner might have been illegal because he was granted bail on 18.1.2009 and 27.4.2009. Even such a grievance does not appear to be justified because the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State shows that on 4.12.2007, petitioner was remanded to custody in connection with Mokama PS Case No.115 of 2004 which has led to Sessions Trial No.263 of 2008 which is pending and trial is progressing. 6. So far as grievance of illegal detention in the past is concerned, a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1987 PLJR 650 and later Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(2) PLJR 488, clearly laid down the principle of law that the detention which might have been illegal at its inception, may become legalized on account of passing of a valid order of remand subsequently and in such a situation, if the custody is lawful and in accordance with valid order of remand on the date of consideration of the writ petition, - 5 - no order can be passed for release of the petitioner. 7. Hence, on facts as well as law, these writ petitions have no merits. These writ petitions have been filed under apparent misconception of law and facts when clearly no cause of action arose to the petitioner after the order passed by this Court in his earlier writ petition, as contained in Annexure-1 dated 27.9.2010. Ordinarily, we would have imposed cost upon the petitioner but as he is in custody hence we do not propose to do so. The writ petitions are dismissed. 8. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted recording of certain further submissions which in our view, are not relevant because the writ petitions are meritless and are being dismissed summarily at the stage of admission itself. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)