Title of the case: Abdul Jamil & Ors. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station STF/ATF Bhopal.
Decided on October 12, 2023.
Case No.: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.12249 of 2023.
CORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL.
Introduction
The present petition has filed U/S 482 of Cr. P. C. 1973, praying for the release of accused those are charged under the FIR No.43/2022 of PS Special Task Force, for commission of offence U/S 121A, 153A, 120B,201 of IPC,1860, and U/S 13(1)(b) and 18 of UAPA,1967,(Amendment 2012) on the sole ground of that when the extension of judicial custody were made the accused were not presented before the Magistrate. The single Judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed the facts and circumstances of the present case and the Code of Procedure related to the present case and held that this cannot be the sole ground of default bail of the accused U/S 167(2) of Cr. P. C. and also directed to lower courts and Deputy Genral (Prison) of the Madhya Pradesh to present all the accused before the Magistrate physically or through video linkage at the time of extension of their judicial custody.
Facts of the case
In the present case the FIR No. 43/2022 of PS STF, were registered for the commission of offence U/S 121A, 153A, 120B, 201 of IPC,1860 and U/S 13(1)(b) of UAPA,1967(Amendment 2012). The order of the extension of Judicial Custody passed by the Magistrate in the absence of them which was challenged by them and prayed for the default bail.
Courts observation
The single Judge bench of Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal after hearing both sides plea and observing the facts and circumstances of the present case relied upon the Judgement given by the Apex Court of India in the case of Raj Narain v. Suprintendent. Central Jail, New Delhi 1971 AIR 178. In which the Apex Court held that the presence of the accused before the Magistrate at the time of extension of the judicial custody is not prerequisite. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi@ Ram Prasad & etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors. Etc. (1987). Though presence of the accused at the time of extension of judicial custody is desirable, but failure to do so per se will not vitiate the order of the remand. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and also directed to the Magistrates and Deputy General (Prison) of Madhya Pradesh that to make sure to present the accused before the Magistrate at the time of extension of judicial custody physically if it not possible then by video linkage facility and also maintain the diary of this.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full serviced law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Aamir Hussain.
