M.SHASHIDHARA @ SHASHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Penal Code, which is now pending before the learned IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) and 5^th J.M.F.C., at Tumkur and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the above case, in the interest of Justice and equity."

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners herein were arrested by the Police of New Extension Town Police Station, Tumakuru on 06.12.2021 in respect of Crime No.87/2021. They were sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, Jayanagar Police, Tumkuru, registered a case in Crime No.20/2021 against the petitioners. Since the custodial investigation of the petitioners was necessary in Crime No. 20/2021, Jayanagar Police filed an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No. 20/2021 seeking custody of the petitioners as is contemplated under Section

267 Cr.P.C., on 08.12.2021. The said application was allowed on 27.12.2021 and thereafter, the custody of the petitioners was granted to Jananagar Police Station for the

3

period from 29.12.2021 to 30.12.2021. Admittedly, the said order came to be passed by exercising the powers vested with the learned Trial Magistrate under Section 267 Cr.P.C. The order of handing over the custody of the petitioners to Jayanagar Police in respect of investigation in Crime No. 20/2021 from custody in Crime No. 87/2021 was as per Form No.36 of Cr.P.C. On completion of the custodial investigation, the petitioners were sent back to the judicial custody in Crime No.87/2021.

3. The petitioners were enlarged on bail by order dated 18.01.2022 in Crime No.87/2021. However, the petitioners were not released by the jail authorities though they had the benefit of grant of bail in Crime No. 87/2021 purportedly on the ground that there is a body warrant issued by the learned Magistrate in respect of Crime No.20/2021.

4. Therefore, the petitioners approached learned District Judge for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Petition No.66/2022. Learned III Addl.

4

District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru after hearing the Public Prosecutor, on merits dismissed the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the fact that they have been enlarged on bail in Crime No. 87/2021 by order dated 18.01.2022 and petitioners are continued in custody on the basis of the body warrant issued in Crime No. 20/2021.

6. The same is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader stating that the petitioners are known criminals.

7. Apart from the merits of the matter, while hearing the parties, this Court raised a technical point to be satisfied on behalf of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners were not at all arrested and sent to judicial custody in respect of Crime No. 20/2021 as such, how a

5

bail petition is maintainable under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In reply to the same learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that though they are not arrested, the Jail Authorities are not releasing the petitioners on the ground that there is a body warrant issued in Crime No. 20/2021.

8. In order to appreciate the said aspect of the matter, it is necessary for this Court to cull out the provisions of Sections 439 and 267 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct -

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub- section;

(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the

6

Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.

(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody."

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

7

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 Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order."

9. It is also necessary for this Court to find out whether at all an order passed under Section 267 of Cr.P.C, could be termed as a warrant or not and also to find out whether an order passed under Section 267 of Cr.P.C. would authorize any Jail Authorities to detain a person in the prison or not, it is necessary for this Court to cull out the Forms prescribed under Cr.P.C., directing a person to be produced before another Court, when he has already in custody in a given case.

10. The relevant Forms are Form Nos.36 and 37 of Schedule-II of Cr.P.C. For ready reference those forms are culled out hereunder:

8

"FORM No. 36

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION IN COURT OF PERSON IN

PRISON FOR ANSWERING TO CHARGE OF OFFENCE

(See section 267)

To the Officer-in-charge in the Jail at…………………………. WHEREAS the attendance of …………(name of prisoner) at present confined/detained in the above mentioned prison, is required in this Court to answer to a charge of ……………. (state shortly the offence charged) or for the purpose of a proceeding ………………… (state shortly the particulars of the proceeding); You are hereby required to produce the said …………..under safe and sure conduct before this Court …………..on the day of ….., 20….., by ………A.M. there to answer to the said charge, or for the purpose of the said proceeding, and after this Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison.

And you are further required to inform the said ………..of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof.

Dated, this…………….. day of………..,20…….

(Seal of the Court) (Signature)

Countersigned.

(Seal)

(Signature)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

9

FORM No. 37

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION IN COURT OF PERSON IN

PRISON FOR GIVING EVIDENCE

(Refer section 267) To the Officer-in-charge in the Jail at …………………………. WHEREAS complaint has been made before this cort that ______ (name of the accused) of ________ has committed the offence of ________ (state the offence concisely with time and place) and it appears that ______ (name of prisoner) at present confined/detained in the above mentioned prison, is likely to give material evidence for the prosecution/defence. You are hereby required to produce the said …………..under safe and sure conduct before this Court at …………..on the _____ day of ….., 20….., by ………A.M. there to give evidence in the matter now pending before this court, and after this court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison.

And you are further required to inform the said ………..of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof.

Dated, this…………….. day of………..,20…….

(Seal of the Court) (Signature)

Countersigned.

(Seal) (Signature)"

*******

10

11. On careful and conjoint reading of Sections 439 and 267 Cr.P.C. and also the contents of Form Nos.36 & 37 of Cr.P.C., the following aspects would emerge;

• A person can be in custody at any given point of time only in one case.

• If at all if the same person is required to be produced before the Investigating Agency or before the Court as the case may be or to meet different

contingencies enumerated in Section 267 of Cr.P.C, he can be temporarily taken out from that custody and produce before the Investigating Agency or before the Jurisdictional Court in terms of the order passed by exercising power under Section 267 Cr.P.C.

• After the said contingency is fulfilled the accused (under trial prisoner or convict) would be brought back to the judicial custody.

• The temporary transit of the accused in pursuance of the order passed under section 267 Cr.P.C. would not authorize the jail authorities to detain him in the custody.

11

12. To meet such contingencies, different Forms have also been provided under the Cr.P.C. as is referred to in Form Nos.36 & 37. Form Nos.36 and 37 deals with answering to charge of offence and leading evidence by a person, who is in custody.

13. Taking note of the orders being passed in issuing body warrant in large number of cases across the State and accused persons detained in judicial custody even after the accused obtained the bail in a given case where he has been remanded to judicial custody by the jail authorities under the guise of body warrant, this Court sought the assistance of the learned State Public Prosecutor-II to address the arguments in the present case. Accordingly, learned State Public Prosecutor-II submitted his arguments.

14. Further, the accused (under trial prisoners or the convict as the case may be), who have been brought before the Investigating Agency or before the Court of law, would not seize to remain in custody, where the accused has been remanded. But, he has been temporarily taken

12

out of the custody by orders of the Court passed under Section 267 Cr.P.C. Except this mechanism, there is no other method, where a person in custody can be taken out from the custody for any purpose.

15. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the petitioners, who were in judicial custody in Crime No.87/2021, were given to the custody of the Investigating Officer in respect of investigation in Crime No. 20/2021 of Jayanagar Police Station by virtue of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crime No.20/2021 dated 27.12.2021. They were given to custody on 29.12.2021 and 30.12.2021. After the custodial investigation is concluded in respect of Crime No. 20/2021, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners have been sent back to the judicial custody in Crime No. 87/2021. Issuance of body warrant in Crime No.20/2021 therefore, did not authorize the Jail Authorities to detain them in custody any longer especially, when the petitioners had

13

the benefit of grant of bail by order dated 18.01.2022 in respect of crime No.87/2021.

16. Therefore, what emerges from the above discussion is that an order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. by the Court seeking the presence of the accused, who had already been in judicial custody in another case, would result in dispel the custody of that accused in earlier case for a temporary period for the purpose of meeting the contingencies enumerated in Section 267 Cr.P.C. In other words, order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C., does not authorize the custody of that particular accused in subsequent case/s.

17. Thus, for all practical purposes, the custody of the accused remains with the court which has sent him to judicial custody at the first instance. Therefore, a body warrant issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C., at no stretch of imagination would authorize the prison authorities to detain that particular accused in custody, if the accused

14

has already been granted bail in a case where he has remanded to judicial custody at the first instance.

18. The issue on this point is no longer res-integra. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar situation in a Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) in the case of Gourav Geol Vs. State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Prisons and Others reported in

ILR 2015 KAR 4675, wherein the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Dass Ram Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 1987 SUPP. (1) SCC 143 has been referred and held as under:

"6. If a person is detained legally in connection with any crime by the order passed by

"A" Court, such person if required in another crime in "B" Court, the provisions of Section 267 of Cr.PC shall be employed. Section 269 of Cr.PC is an adjunct to Section 267 of Cr.PC and the two provisions have to be read harmoniously. The main purpose of Section 267 of Cr.PC is to check delays when criminal proceedings are pending in different Courts.

15

7. It is clear from the provisions of Sections 267 and 269 of Cr.PC that they are akin to Sections 3 and 6 of the Prisoners Act. Section 6 of the Prisoners Act and Section 269 of Cr.PC authorizes the officer in-charge of the Prison to abstain from complying with the order issued under Section 3 of the Prisoners Act or under Section 267 of Cr.PC as the case may be, requiring the officer in-charge of the Prison to produce the person detained in prison, before the Court.

8. Admittedly, in the matter on hand, the JMFC Court, Tiptur has given the date as 17.7.2015 for production of the petitioner's father (detenue) before the said Court and for the said purpose the body warrant is issued by the JMFC Court, Tiptur and the same is communicated to the Prison authorities, Bangalore wherein the detenue is imprisoned. It is not in dispute that the detenue was imprisoned and sent to Central Prison, Bangalore in connection with Crime No.10/2015 registered by the Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. Admittedly, the Special Court has granted an order of bail in favour of the detenue on 19.6.2015 in the said matter. The release order is also issued by the Special Court after complying with the conditions imposed by the said Court in the order of bail. Despite the same, the prison authorities have not released the

16

detenue on the ground that the body warrant is issued against the detenue by the JMFC Court, Tiptur in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009. In our considered opinion, mere pendency of body warrant/production warrant will not be enough to keep a prisoner in prison beyond the date of expiry of the sentence or beyond the date of release order, in case if he is granted an order of bail and the release order is made. The pendency of Production Warrant cannot be equated with the pendency of remand order or the warrant of arrest The Production warrant/body warrant cannot be construed to be an authorization for detaining a person illegally. As aforementioned, the date fixed by the JMFC Court, Tiptur for production of detenue in CC Nos.309/09 and 63/09 is 17.7.2015. The body warrant is issued on the ground that the detenue was detained in Central Prison, Bangalore in connection with Crime No.10/15 of Special Investigation Team, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. Undisputedly, the detenue is granted an order of bail by the Special Court in Crime No.10/2015 on 19.6.2015 and release order was also issued immediately after complying with the conditions of bail. If it is so, the detention of the detenue subsequent to service of the release order issued by the Special Court in Crime No.10/2015, on the Prison Authorities, would be illegal. The

17

Prison Authorities could not have detained the prisoner in Crime No.10/2015 subsequent to passing of the release order dated 19.6.2015. On that day itself, the detenue should have been released by the Prison Authorities. Citing the reason of issuance of body warrant by the JMFC Court, Tiptur in CC Nos.309/2009 and 63/2009, the Prison Authorities have wrongly detained the detenue till this date. As aforementioned, the pendency of the body warrant/Production Warrant cannot be equated to the order of remand and the same cannot be construed to be an authorization for detaining a person beyond the period. Body Warrant is issued only for the purpose of securing the appearance of a person who is already detained in custody. Admittedly, there is no order or authorization for detaining the detenue after 19.6.2015 by any Court including the JMFC Court, Tiptur. So also the arrest warrant is not issued by any Court after 19.6.2015. It is not disputed by the Government Advocate that the offences alleged against the detenue before the JMFC Court, Tiptur are bailable in nature. Hence in our considered opinion, the detention of the detenue subsequent to service of release order on the Prison Authorities, Bengaluru is illegal and unauthorized.

9. Similar situation arose before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Habeas Corpus

18

Petition No.1151/2010. While deciding the said Habeas Corpus Petition on 1^st July 2010, the Madras High Court has observed thus:

"11. A conjoint reading of Sections 267 and

269 Cr.P.C will make it clear that the purpose of P.T. warrant is to direct the production of a person who is confined or detained in prison by a lawful order. It cannot be interpreted to mean that the P.T. warrant shall be an authorization to curtail the liberty of the person and keep him in custody till the date on which his production is sought for. The mere pendency of a P.T. warrant shall not be enough to keep a prisoner in the prison beyond the date of expiry of the sentence, if he is a convict or beyond the date on which the remand expires unless the remand is extended by a competent court. The pendency of a P.T. warrant cannot be equated with a remand and the same cannot be construed to be an authorization for detaining a person beyond the period for which he was remanded or committed to undergo punishment. From the above, it is clear that the scope of body warrant/P.T. warrant cannot be enlarged by assuming the same to be an authorization for detaining the prisoner beyond the period of detention. It will be effective only if his detention is otherwise authorized as on the date on which he is

19

supposed to be produced before the Court issuing P.T. warrant.

10. It is also relevant to note that in the case of RAM DASS RAM .vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (reported in 1987 Supp(1) SCC 143), under the similar facts and circumstances, the Apex Court has observed that the detention of the concerned person in Jail is illegal inasmuch as there was no warrant for detaining him in jail after his acquittal in two criminal matters; merely because of issuance of Production Warrant by another Criminal Court, the said person cannot be continued in Prison without there being specific order relating to his arrest.

11. The Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with similar matter in the case of ARUN KRISHNA SAIL .vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (in WPHC No.243/2014 decided on 26^th December 2014). This Court after discussing the facts and law on the point directed that the concerned person should be set at free if there is no order passed by any Court against the said person directing him to be in judicial custody."

19. However, during the course of hearing, learned SPP-II brought to the notice of this Court few unreported Judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the

20

Division Bench has taken note of the fact that the body warrant can be recalled by filing an application and therefore, the prayer of the petitioners, who had approached this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be granted.

20. This Court perused those orders passed by the Co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court meticulously. In all such petitions, it is pertinent to note that there is no reference to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in

Gaurav Geol's case supra which is also reported.

21. Therefore, necessity has arisen for this Court to consider the principles of law enunciated in Gaurav Geol's case vis-a-vis, the subsequent orders.

22. On such perusal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Division Bench in

Gaurav Geol's case supra refers to the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ram Dass Ram's case supra and discussed in detail the

21

inter play of the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. and also discussed in detail about the power of the jail authorities to detain a person on the ground of pending body warrant issued under Section 267 of Cr.P.C.

23. It is pertinent to note that in the State of Karnataka, the order passed by the Court under Section

267 Cr.P.C., is popularly called as 'body warrant' and in the other parts of the country, it is called as 'production and transit order' or in some States, it is also called as 'PT Warrant' (Production & Transit warrant'). The usage of the word warrant in such type of orders is in the considered opinion of this Court misnomer having regard to the contents of the Forms in Form Nos.36 and 37, referred to supra. Wherever legislation wanted the use of the word 'Warrant', they have used so (Ex. Form Nos.34 and 35).

24. On careful consideration of the contents of the above Forms, it is crystal clear that there is no warrant to the Jail Authority to detain a person while passing an order under Section 267 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the framers of legislation have carefully used in the heading of the above

22

Forms that it is an order and not warrant. May be colloquially the word warrant has been attached to the above orders and it should not have any other effect as the contents of the Forms are important to be seen and not the nomenclature. Therefore, the question of Jail Authorities detaining the petitioners in the prison in respect of the body warrant issued in Crime No. 20/2021 is incorrect and without authority. Lest it could be termed as illegal detention.

25. At this stage, it is submitted by the leaned SPP-II that after this Court heard the parties yesterday, the Jail Authorities have released the petitioners from the prison and therefore, the petition relief has become infructuous. Said submission is placed on record and for the academic purpose, matter is further discussed.

26. Having said thus, the prosecution expressed few apprehensions. It is common experience that the learned trial Judges, often use the expression that "body warrant extended". In some cases, "re-issue body warrant

23

and judicial custody extended". It is pertinent to note that while exercising the power under Section 267 Cr.P.C., the court before whom a person who has already in custody is produced before the court which has issued order u/s.267 Cr.PC, will not have any authority to extend the body warrant or give him to the custody in the said case. If his presence is required further, fresh order is to be issued.

27. As could be seen from the contents of Forms supra, when once the purpose is served for a particular day/days, the order passed under Section 267 Cr.P.C., seized to exist and the accused, who has been produced before the Court or before the Investigating Agency as the case may be will have to return the accused to the judicial custody, wherein he is originally remanded by the orders of the court in the original case. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the learned Magistrate and the district judges as the case may be will not have the power to order for "body warrant extended/judicial custody extended" in case where

24

an accused is produced before that court under the orders passed under Section 267 Cr.P.C., and such practice needs to be discontinued henceforth.

28. It is the further apprehension of the prosecution that an accused in custody may be necessary for investigation in several other cases especially when the accused is a known criminal. When he is enlarged on bail in one case, apprehending the very same accused again in respect of other case/s would be a herculean task and therefore, the State machinery would be put to un- necessary hardship. Needless to emphasize that a suitable mechanism needs to be evolved by the Home Department to protect their interest to meet such contingency.

29. It is to be noted that an web application is developed by NIC (National Information Centre) called 'E- prisons'. It is always open for the Home Department to make necessary and suitable module in the said web application to track an accused, who is already in custody in one case, number of body warrants issued against him and number of cases, where he is required for

25

investigation. All those features can be made available in the said web application whereby there would be a proper mechanism by which, State machinery would be made known about release of an accused in a given case. It would probably sufficient enough to safeguard the apprehension expressed by the prosecution Department. It is to be clarified at any rate, such apprehensions would not permit the Jail Authorities to detain a person who has the benefit of grant of bail by a duly constituted Court even for a minute under the pretext of body warrant issued in another case.

30. Learned SPP-II during the course of hearing, produces the copy of Circulars issued by the Office of the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services, dated 10.03.2022 and 11.03.2022 with a memo. The circulars reads as under:

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (Prisons and Correctional Services) No:J2/CR-05/2022

Office of the

Director General of Police

26

Prisons & Correctional Services #4, Seshadri Road,Bengaluru-09 Dated: 10.03.2022

"Hon'ble High Court Matter- Most Urgent"

CIRCULAR

Sub: Observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition Nos. 1396/2022, 1488/2022 and 1445/2022 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru - Sri M. Shashidhara Shashi and another /Vs/ The State by Jayanagara Police - Reg.

Ref: State Public Prosecutor-Il. High Court of Karnataka, letter dated: 10.03.2022

***

With reference to the above subject, the State Public Prosecutor-II has conveyed the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide his letter at reference above, regarding release of prisoners from the prisons in the State, who are detained only under the body warrants. Copy of the letter is enclosed herewith.

As per the letter at reference above, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition Nos. 1396/2022, 1488/2022 and 1445/2022-Sri M. Shashidhara @ Shashi and another /Vs/ The State by Jayanagara Police, has observed that the petitioners are detained only under body warrant issued under Section 267 of Cr.P.C without there being any judicial remand or legal detention. Hence, they are entitled to be

27

released in view of the judgment reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court case 143 and ILR 2015 KAR 4675. Therefore, it is hereby directed to comply with the observations of the Hon'ble High Court by releasing such prisoners from the prisons in the State, if they are only detained under body warrant issued under Section 267 of Cr.P.C without there being any judicial order or detention order. The local and concerned Police shall be kept informed of the release of such prisoners.

Compliance report on the release of such prisoners detained only on body warrants shall be submitted to this office immediately without fail.

Encl: 02 pages

Sd/-

(Dr. ALOK MOHAN, IPS)

Director General of Police

Prisons & Correctional Services

Karnataka State.

To,

- All the Chief Superintendents / Superintendents of Central Prisons. - All the Superintendents of District / Taluk / Revenue Prisons. Copy for necessary action to:

- Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Head Quarters, Bengaluru. - Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, North Range Belagavi / South Range, Bengaluru.

- Superintendent of Prisons, Head Quarters, Benglauru. - Office Copy.

Copy for information to:

28

- Sri. V.S. Hegde, State Public Prosecutor-II, Office of the Advocate General, High Court building, Bengaluru. Copy with compliments to: -

- The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru.

- The Principal Secretary (PCAS), Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru."

******

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (Prisons and Correctional Services) No: 12/CR-05/2022

Office of the

Director General of Police Prisons & Correctional Services #4, Seshadri Road, Bengaluru-09 Dated: 11.03.2022

"Hon'ble High Court Matter - Most Urgent"

CIRCULAR

Sub: Observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition Nos. 1396/2022, 1488/2022 and 1445/2022 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru - Sti M. Shashidhara @ Shashi and another /Vs/ The State by Jayanagara Police - Reg. Ref: 1) State Public Prosecutor II, High Court of Karnataka, letter dated: 10.03.2022 2) This office circular of even No. dated: 10.03.2022.

***

In continuation of this office circular of even number dated: 10.03.2022, wherein it was directed that as per the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition Nos. 1396/2022, 1488/2022 and 1445/2022-Sri M.

29

Shashidhara @ Shashi and another /Vs/ The State by Jayanagara Police, the prisoners who are detained only under body warrant issued under Section 267 of Cr.P.C without there being any judicial remand or legal detention, are entitled to be released in view of the judgment reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court case 143 and ILR 2015 KAR 4675. It is further directed that as stipulated under Section 269 of Cr.P.C the prison Superintendents shall keep the concerned courts who have issued the body warrants informed of the release of such prisoners.

(Dr. ALOK MOHAN, IPS)

Director General of Police

Prisons & Correctional Services

Karnataka State.

To,

- All the Chief Superintendents / Superintendents of Central Prisons. - All the Superintendents of District / Taluk / Revenue Prisons."

31. A bare reading of the above circulars makes it clear that the same would sufficiently secure the rights of the under trial prisoners like petitioners. This Court records the appreciation for the prompt efforts made especially by the Director General of Police, Prisons & Correctional Services, Karnataka State. The said Circulars may also be circulated to all the Prosecutors across the

30

State by the concerned department so as to make appropriate submissions while an order under section 267 Cr.PC, is sought to be obtained in a given case. With the above observations, this court passes the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition stands disposed of, in view of the fact that the petitioners are already released by the Jail Authorities, Tumakuru, no further orders in this petition is necessary with regard to the petition prayer. The able assistance and co-operation rendered by the learned SPP-II and the Officers and Officials of the office of the Director General of Police, Prisons and Correctional Services and Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru, is placed on record with appreciation not only for their co-operation but also for their prompt action in issuing the circulars referred to supra.

31

Copy of this order be made available to all the Judicial Officers in the District judiciary through Karnataka Judicial Academy.

Learned Registrar General, shall take necessary steps in this regard.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

32