- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sandip Kumar Dey v. The Officer-In-Charge, Sakchi P.S, Jamshedpur And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On June 5, 1971, a police raid in Jamshedpur led to the seizure of arms and ammunition. The petitioner, Sandip Kumar Dey, and one Narain Das were arrested at the scene and produced the next day before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur, who remanded them to judicial custody. After August 5, 1971 the petitioner was lodged in Gaya Jail for security reasons, yet successive remand orders continued to be issued by the Jamshedpur Magistrate without his physical production in court. Alleging that such orders were illegal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Magistrate can lawfully pass successive orders of remand without the physical production of the accused before the court.
- Whether any remand orders were passed by a Magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction and, if so, whether that invalidates the petitioner’s detention.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Code of Criminal Procedure requires an accused to be produced before the court at every stage of remand; orders made in his absence are void.
- Some remand orders were allegedly issued by a Magistrate at Gaya who had no jurisdiction over the case, rendering those orders illegal.
Respondents' Position
The opinion does not set out a detailed exposition of the respondents’ arguments; instead it relies on their counter-affidavit and the magistrate’s records, both of which were inconclusive on the question of production.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Raj Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi (1970) 2 SCC 750; (1971) 2 SCR 147 |
An order of remand is not invalid merely because the accused is not produced before the Magistrate; production, though desirable, is not mandatory in every circumstance. | Formed the controlling authority; the Court held that non-production alone could not vitiate the impugned remand orders. |
| Gouri Shankar Jha v. State of Bihar (1972) 1 SCC 564; (1972) 3 SCR 129 |
Followed Raj Narain on the permissibility of remand in the absence of the accused. | Cited to reinforce that precedent and apply it to the present facts. |
| M. Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 850; 1973 Cri LJ 663 |
Reiterated that non-production does not per se invalidate remand orders. | Used as additional authority supporting dismissal of the habeas corpus claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the magistrate’s records were ambiguous regarding the petitioner’s production, a lapse it termed “highly unsatisfactory.” Nevertheless, relying on Raj Narain and subsequent decisions, the Court reaffirmed that remand orders are not automatically void for want of production. The allegation that a Gaya Magistrate had issued remand orders was checked against the record and found untrue; all orders emanated from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur, who possessed jurisdiction. While deploring the mechanical granting of remand without the accused being present, the Court concluded that such procedural irregularities did not justify the extraordinary relief of habeas corpus.
Holding and Implications
Petition Dismissed.
The Court declined to order the petitioner’s release but expressed the view that the court presently seised of the matter should consider granting bail, especially because a co-accused was already enlarged on bail and the investigation had taken more than two years. The decision sets no new precedent but underscores the desirability—though not the legal necessity—of producing an accused at each remand hearing and cautions magistrates against routine, unexamined extensions of custody.
Y.V Chandrachud, J.— This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asking for the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, Sandip Kumar Dey, challenges by this petition the legality of various orders under which he was remanded to jail custody from time to time.
2. It appears from the first information report lodged by the Inspector, Golmuri Circle, Jamshedpur, that on the afternoon of June 5, 1971, a large police party raided a house from which ammunition, fire arms and other weapons were recovered. The petitioner and another person called Narain Das were arrested on the spot and were produced on the very next day before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur, who remanded them to jail custody from time to time. The petitioner was transferred to Gaya Jail on August 5, 1971, but the orders of remand continued to be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur without the production of the petitioner before him. It is urged that these remand orders are illegal as they were passed behind the back of the petitioner and in spite of the fact that he was willing and available for being produced before the Magistrate.
3. Mr Garg who appears on behalf of the petitioner has raised several interesting questions arising out of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the jurisdiction of a Court to remand an accused person to custody but all of these points ultimately converge on the issue whether an order of remand can be passed without the physical production of the accused before the Court. This issue is no longer res integra. In Raj Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi (1970) 2 SCC 750, (1971) 2 SCR 147 this Court held by a majority of five to two that even if it be desirable for the Magistrates to have the prisoner produced before them when the prisoners are remitted to further custody, an order of remand made without producing the accused in Court is not invalid as it may on occasions be necessary to order remand in the absence of an accused. This decision was followed in Gouri Shankar Jha v. State of Bihar (1972) 1 SCC 564, (1972) 3 SCR 129 and in M. Sambasiva Rao v. Union of India. AIR 1973 SC 850, 1973 Cri LJ 663
4. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is not clear on the question whether the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate when the various orders of remand were passed and therefore we asked the respondent's Counsel to furnish to us a copy of the proceedings of the Magistrate's Court at Jamshedpur. Those proceedings also do not indicate clearly whether the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate when the remand orders were passed. This is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs and must be deprecated. Orders of remand ought not to be passed mechanically and even though this Court has ruled that the non-production of the accused will not vitiate an order of remand, the Magistrate passing an order of remand ought, as far as possible, to see that the accused is produced in the Court when the order of remand is passed. It appears from the proceedings that the accused was transferred to Gaya Jail partly for reasons of security and that is why he could not be produced in the Jamshedpur Court which passed the various orders of remand.
5. It was urged by Mr Garg that on occasions orders of remand were passed even by the Magistrate at Gaya who clearly had no jurisdiction to try the offences attributed to the petitioner. This, if true, would have been a serious matter but the proceedings show that the orders of remand were passed all through by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur and not by the Magistrate at Gaya.
6. Though we cannot direct the release of the petitioner by issuing a writ of habeas corpus we are of the opinion that the Court before which the case may now be pending must consider whether the petitioner could not be released on bail forthwith. It appears from the copy of the proceedings supplied to us that Narain Das who was arrested along with the petitioner was released on bail in or about September, 1973. The petitioner's case stands on the same footing as that of Narain Das and in view of the fact that the investigation took more than two years to complete this may be a fit case in which the Magistrate could release the petitioner on a proper bail.
7. With these observations we dismiss the petition.
Alert