Ram Dass Ram Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Ram Dass Ram vs State of Bihar and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 27, 1987

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/651639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/651639
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: A.P. Sen and; M.M. Dutt, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 27, 1987
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 519 of 1985
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [A.K. Sarkar, C.J.,; J.M. Shelat,; J.R. Mudholkar,; M. Hidayatullah, JJ.] The respondents were arrested by the police for the offence of trespass and were released on bail. They were tried and sentenced to pay a fine by the Nyaya Panchayat, a court established under the Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949, with po...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324 and 327

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Dass Ram

Respondent

State of Bihar and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324 and 327
Reported In: AIR1987SC1333; 1987CriLJ1055; JT1987(1)SC303; 1987Supp(1)SCC143

Excerpt

.....way of sentence of imprisonment as a result of the trial; nor does it deprive an arrested person of his constitutional right to take steps against the arrest or to defend himself at a trial which might occasion the loss of his personal liberty. the fact that the respondents were arrested under another statute, namely, the criminal procedure code cannot make either the section or the act void. [242 g-h; 243 c-d; 244 d-e] state of bombay v. atma ram sridhar vaidya, [1951] s.c.r. 167..204, followed. quaere:...whether respondents were not entitled to the constitutional right because, at the trial they were on bail. [244 e] per bachawat and shelat jj.: section 63 of the act is violative of art. 22(1) and is void to the extent that it denies any person who is arrested the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice in any trial for the crime for which he is arrested. but, the order of the high court, quashing the conviction, should be set aside, because, the respondents did not claim that they should be defended at the trial by counsel, and the circumstances of the case, the existence of s. 63 on the statute book did not cause them any prejudice. [257 g; 258 b-c] as soon as the respondents were arrested without warrants issued by a court, they acquired the rights guaranteed by art. 22(1), and they continued to have those rights though they were released on bail at the time of trial. the rights include the right to be defended even in a trial in which they were in jeopardy of only being sentenced to a fine. because, the pronoun "he" in the second part of art. 22(1) refers to "any person who is arrested'-. if in the exercise of the general powers under the criminal procedure code, the police arrest a person on the accusation of a crime for which he is liable to be tried before a special criminal court, the arrested person has the constitutional right to be defended by counsel at the trial before the special criminal court in respect of the offence for which..........judgment dated august 14, 1986 recorded an order of acquittal and directed the release of the petitioner unless he was wanted in some other case. after the disposal of these cases, the petitioner instead of being released was transferred from the district jail, arrah to the central jail, buxur on november 30, 1986 i.e. after this court had on november 10, 1986 issued notice to the government, on the strength of a production warrant issued by the judicial magistrate, buxur to face his trial under sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the indian penal code.2. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be no doubt that the petitioner is being wrongfully detained at the central jail, buxur without any lawful justification. as already stated, he had been acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the indian penal code by the high court in one case and thereafter by the 2nd additional sessions judge, arrah of the charge under sections 307 and 324, both read with section 34 in another case. thereafter there was no warrant for detaining him in jail. it is unfortunate that the learned judicial magistrate, buxur without applying his mind to the facts of the case, should have for the mere asking issued a production warrant. the petitioner has been in jail for more than eight years and even if he were to be convicted for having committed the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the indian penal code, he would have in the meanwhile served out the sentence.3. the writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released forthwith. the proceedings before the judicial magistrate, buxur are quashed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for grant of a writ of habeas corpus, the only question is whether the detention of the petitioner at the Central Jail, Buxur is without any lawful authority. It appears from the counter-affidavit, of the Superintendent, district Jail, Arrah that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxur had remanded the petitioner to the Central Jail, Buxur in the year 1978 in connection with case registered under GR 476/78 pertaining to commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, the petitioner on the strength of a production warrant was transferred to the District Jail, Arrah to stand his trial in Sessions Case No. 75/79 in the Court of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated August 21, 1980 for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On appeal being preferred, the High Court by its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 371/80 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquitted the petitioner. Despite the release warrant issued by the High Court, the petitioner was continued to be detained at the District Jail, Arrah since he had to stand his trial before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Case No. 86/82 for having committed alleged offences under Sections 307 and 327, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated August 14, 1986 recorded an order of acquittal and directed the release of the petitioner unless he was wanted in some other case. After the disposal of these cases, the petitioner instead of being released was transferred from the District Jail, Arrah to the Central Jail, Buxur on November 30, 1986 i.e. after this Court had on November 10, 1986 issued notice to the Government, on the strength of a production warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Buxur to face his trial under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be no doubt that the petitioner is being wrongfully detained at the Central Jail, Buxur without any lawful justification. As already stated, he had been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court in one case and thereafter by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah of the charge under Sections 307 and 324, both read with Section 34 in another case. Thereafter there was no warrant for detaining him in jail. It is unfortunate that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Buxur without applying his mind to the facts of the case, should have for the mere asking issued a production warrant. The petitioner has been in jail for more than eight years and even if he were to be convicted for having committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, he would have in the meanwhile served out the sentence.

3. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released forthwith. The proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Buxur are quashed.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1987 Same Parties Ram Dass Ram vs State of Bihar and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge A.P. Sen and; M.M. Dutt, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) -...

Criminal