D.P. Singh, J.
1. The present writ application is for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to release the petitioner Nemi Chand Jain from illegal and unauthorised confinement at Dhanbad jail for the following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has been allowed bail in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 746/2007 on 9.8.2007).
(2) That in spite of this bail order, the petitioner has not been released till the date of filing of this application i.e. on 23.8.2007 by the Dhanbad Jail Superintendent, respondent No. 2.
(3) That in stead of releasing the petitioner, he has been sent to Delhi on the basis of production warrant issued from the Court of Sri I.K. Kochhar, Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in connection with RC case No. 5(E)/2005/EOW-II/DLI.
2. The main ground taken up by Mr. Mahabir Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that by keeping the petitioner in Dhanbad jail after grant of bail by order dated 9.8.2007 he may not be sent to Delhi Court for remand under the provisions of Section 267, Cr PC. Learned Counsel has further stressed that two cases pending before the Courts of Magistrates at Jamshedpur were ignored and he was intentionally not being sent to Jamshedpur depriving him from constitutional right in spite of the production warrant issued far back on 25.5.2006, 21.7.2006 and 25.4.2007. Therefore, his detention in the Dhanbad Jail may be declared illegal and petitioner be directed to be released forthwith.
3. The respondents on notice have appeared and filed counter affidavit on 8.1.2008 by which the allegations have been refuted. However, it is asserted that the petitioner at the moment is not in custody at Dhanbad jail as he has been remanded in connection with RC Case No. 5(E)/2005 by the Court of Sri IK. Kochhar, Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 27th August, 2007. It is stated that the release order of the petitioner in connection with RC Case No. 2(E)/1998-D was received by the respondent on 16.8.2007. It is further stated that on the same day the production warrant, vide Annexure A, was received by the Jail authorities. According to the respondents the petitioner was interrogated by CBI team on 7th August, 2007 in connection with Delhi case. Thereafter the requisition for production was issued by Delhi Court on 21.8.2007, vide Annexure B. Accordingly, the petitioner was handed over to CBI on 26.8.2007 for production before the Delhi Court where he was finally remanded on 27.8.2007, vide Annexure C. As such no illegal detention.
4. We have heard both sides on the petition and counter affidavit. The petitioner's release order has been received by the respondent No. 2 on 16.8.2007. It further appears that during this period, Special Judge, Delhi has issued a requisition for production of the petitioner in connection with RC Case No. 5(E)/2005. Respondent No. 2 has finally shifted him to Delhi where he was remanded properly in Tihar Jail. It further appears that the petitioner is facing charges of the different offences before the Courts at Jamshedpur as well as Delhi.
5. The procedures for production of the accused persons, confined or detained in prison, have been dealt with in Chapter XXII comprising of Sections 266 to 271. Section 267 reads as under:
267. Power to require attendance of prisoners.-(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court.
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.
(2) Where an order under Sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under Sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the orders.
5.1 We further find that officer in charge or prison is obliged to arrange for production of such persons in his prison before the Courts for their remand except when such person has been excluded under Section 268, Cr PC and under certain contingency under Section 269, Cr PC, otherwise the officer in charge of prison shall cause such person to be kept in custody and arrange for his being taken to the Court where his attendance is required.
6. On perusal of Annexure A, the said production order, it appears to have been issued on 16.8.2007 and in compliance thereof the petitioner was ultimately sent to Delhi under Escort where he was ultimately produced and remanded on 27.8.2007.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2001 (4) Cr LJ 3831, in which the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court set aside the order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta allowing the prayer for production of the petitioner before the Court of CJM Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam.
8. The main reason to set aside the order was that such prayer was made by the investigating authority to him. In the present case the direction was received by the respondent No. 2 from a competent Court, Special Judge CBI, Delhi for production of the petitioner before it in connection with a case already pending before it. The provision under Section 267, Cr PC says that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence or for the purpose of any proceeding against him and Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such a person before a Court. The respondent No. 2, as such, has to comply with the direction in accordance with law. Further more we find that the petitioner was produced before the said Delhi Court under escort and remanded on 27.8.2007.
9. In such view of the facts, we find that the action taken by the respondent No. 2 by sending the petitioner to be produced before a Court of competent jurisdiction under provisions of Section 267, Cr PC is proper and cannot be held illegal.
10. Accordingly, we find that the present writ petition is without merit and the same be dismissed. Petition dismissed.