http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MANTOO MAJUMDAR & BASDEV SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/02/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. GUPTA, A.C. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  847            1980 SCR  (2)1105  1980 SCC  (2) 406

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure 1974-Section 167(2)-Accused persons detained  in  prison  for  over  six  years  without investigation or framing of charges-Legality of.

HEADNOTE:      The two  petitioners have  been  imprisoned  for  seven years in  various  prisons  on  the  basis  that  they  were implicated in  several cases  of 1971  and  1972.  In  their habeas  corpus   petition  they   impugned  their  continued detention in prison without trial.      Allowing the petition, ^      HELD :  The petitioners  should be  released forthwith. [1109E]      (1) Section  167(2) of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure empowers the  magistrate to  authorise the  detention of  an accused in  such custody  as he  thinks fit  for a  term not exceeding 15  days in  the whole.  The section also provides that no  magistrate shall  authorise the  detention  of  the accused person  exceeding 90 days in grave cases and 60 days in lesser  cases, and  that on the expiry of the said period the accused  shall be  released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. [1108H]      (2) Apart  from mentioning  the sections  in the  Penal Code by way of a passport into the prison house, there is no mention of  any investigation of the cases, nor was a charge sheet laid before the court against either accused. Even the Magistracy have bidden farewell to their primary obligation. [1108E]      (3) Although  in these cases many years have passed the magistrates  have  been  mechanically  authorising  repeated detentions unconscious of the provisions of law. [1109B]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1149 of 1979.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)      V. N. Ganpule for the Petitioners.      U. P. Singh for the Respondent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER, J.-No Constitution nor Code nor Court can interdict illegal incarceration where conscientized agencies of the  law at the grass-roots level are absent. Such is the only explanation  for the  lawless lot  of the two prisoners who are  petitioners before  us. These two humans sojourning for long  years in  some jail  or other  in Bihar since 1972 found their personal liberty subverted by the police, prison officials and  the magistracy that they wrote letters to the Hon. Chief  Justice in  desperation. The above habeas corpus petition is a legal 1106 incarnation of  those letters. Sensitized by the prima facie hideous facts  disclosed the court directed a rule to issue. Somehow, despite several adjournments the State did not even furnish the  basic  facts  about  the  imprisonment  of  the petitioners, the  offences  for  which  they  were  kept  in judicial custody,  for how  long and  at what stage were the proceedings and  the like.  This gross  indifference of  the Bihar State  in regard to citizens deprived of their liberty for indefinite  and prolonged  spells is  an  unconscionable aspect of  that State’s  unconcern for human rights. Indeed, counsel for  the State  did his  level best  to get relevant information. Being  at the end of our patience and finding a helpless counsel,  we had  to pass an order in the following terms :           It is  noticed  that  an  order  dated  17-12-1979      directed  jail  authorities  and  District  Magistrates      under whose  jurisdiction the  petitioners are  kept in      confinement to explain before 14-1-80 the nature of the      charges against  the petitioners, the stage of trial of      each of  these cases  and the  reason for  the delay in      proceeding  with  the  trial.  It  is  surprising  that      despite communication  having been made to them through      the State,  counsel for the State represents that telex      message to  the concerned  District Magistrate and jail      authorities had  been sent,  but no information has yet      been furnished  in compliance  with this Court’s order.      We are  constrained therefore  to issue  notice to  the      jail authorities  and the  District Magistrates to show      cause  why   action  for   violation  of  this  Court’s      direction should  not be  taken against them. The Court      will issue  notice to  be personally  served  on  these      authorities with  a direction that they shall appear in      Court in  person on  25-2-1980. Counsel  for the  State      undertakes  to   furnish  the  names  of  the  District      Magistrate concerned and jail authorities by 12-2-1980.      Post the matter on 13-2-1980 with office report whether      the counsel  has submitted  names and  addresses of the      authorities concerned as directed above.      When the  directive  of  the  court  went  beyond  mere censorious observations  into hint  at  action  against  the defaulting officers,  the scene  began to  change and at the hearing on February 25, 1980, the Superintendent of the Jail and the  District Magistrate who were in a sense vicariously responsible for  the custodial  condition of the petitioners appeared in  person and prayed to be excused for the default or delay  in furnishing vital information about these unfree individuals.  Fuller   facts  have  been  furnished  by  the Superintendent, Central Jail, suffi- 1107 cient to  enable us to discover the incontestable illegality of the  detention and  to direct  the release on bail of the petitioners.      Law is  what law  does and  not what  law writes in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

books beyond  the  reach  of  those  behind  bars.  In  this perspective, Art.  21 of  the Constitution  and s. 167(2) of the Criminal  Procedure  Code,  are  dead  letter  for  each petitioner. Article  21 guarantees personal liberty in these terms :-      No person  shall be  deprived of  his life  or personal      liberty except  according to  procedure established  by      law. Section 167(2)  of the  Criminal Procedure Code contains the following mandate :           The  Magistrate  to  whom  an  accused  person  is      forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has      not jurisdiction  to try  the case,  from time to time,      authorise the  detention of the accused in such custody      as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding      fifteen  days   in  the   whole;  and   if  he  has  no      jurisdiction to  try the  case or  commit it for trial,      and considers  further detention  unnecessary,  he  may      order the  accused to  be  forwarded  to  a  Magistrate      having such jurisdiction :      Provided that-           (a) the  Magistrate may authorise the detention of      the accused  person, otherwise  than in  the custody of      the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is      satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but      no Magistrate  shall authorise  the  detention  of  the      accused person  in custody  under this  paragraph for a      total period exceeding-           (i) ninety  days, where  the investigation relates      to an  offence punishable  with death, imprisonment for      life or  imprisonment for  a term  of not less than ten      years;           (ii) sixty  days, where  the investigation relates      to any other offence,      and, on  the expiry  of the said period of ninety days,      or sixty  days, as  the case may be, the accused person      shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does      furnish bail,  and every  person released on bail under      this sub-section  shall be  deemed to  be  so  released      under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes      of that Chapter; 1108           (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any      custody  under  this  section  unless  the  accused  is      produced before him;           (c)  no   Magistrate  of  the  second  class,  not      specially empowered  in this  behalf by the High Court,      shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.      In Maneka  Gandhi’s case and a crop of cases thereafter this Court  has emphasised  the need  for fair  procedure to justify detention  of persons.  To put  a man  in prison and forget his  personhood thereafter,  to deprive  a man of his personal liberty  for an arbitrary period without monitoring by the  law, to keep a man in continued custody unmindful of just, fair and reasonable procedure-these shake the faith in the rule  of law  and militate  against the mandates of Part III of the Constitution. And yet, that is precisely what has happened in the present case.      The frightful  facts frankly  furnished in  the  return filed are  that  the  two  petitioners  have  been  enduring incarceration for  over seven  years in  various prisons  in Bihar on the basis that they are implicated in several cases of 1971  and 1972.  A long  list has  been  annexed  to  the counter-affidavit. But  what scandalises  us is  that  apart from mentioning  the sections  in the Penal Code by way of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

passport into  the prison  house, there is no mention of any investigation of  the case,  nor a  single charge-sheet laid before the  court against  either accused. What flabbergasts us is that even the magistracy have bidden farewell to their primary  obligation,  perhaps,  fatigued  by  over-work  and uninterested in  the freedom  of others. If we see the chart produced by  the Superintendent  of the  Jail we find that a large number  of dates are given on which the prisoners have been produced  before the magistrates concerned from 1973 to 1980 without  so much  as the  court checking up whether the investigations have  been completed, charge-sheets have been laid and  there is justification for keeping the petitioners in custody.      Section 167(2)  which we have extracted above, empowers the magistrate  to authorise  the detention of an accused in such custody  as he  thinks fit  for a term not exceeding 15 days in  the whole.  More importantly,  there is  a precious interdict protective  of personal  freedom which states that no magistrate  shall authorise  the detention of the accused person exceeding 90 days in grave cases and 60 days in 1109 lesser cases.  "On the  expiry  of  the  said  period....the accused person  shall be  released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail...." Not 60 days but six years have passed in  the present  case; not  90 days  but 1900 days or more have  passed; and  yet, the  magistrates concerned have been   mechanically    authorising    repeated    detentions unconscious  of  the  provisions  which  obligated  them  to monitor the  proceedings which  warrant such  detention.  In short, the  police have  abdicated their  function of prompt investigation. The  prison staff  have not  bothered to know how long  these  internees  should  be  continued  in  their custody and,  most grievous  of all,  the judicial  officers concerned have routinely signed away orders of detention for years  by   periodically   appending   their   incarceratory authorisations. We  know not how many others are languishing in prison  like the petitioners before us. ’If the salt hath lost its  savour, wherewith shall it be salted ?’ If the law officers charged  with the obligation to protect the liberty of persons  are mindless  of constitutional mandates and the code’s dictates,  how can  freedom survive  for the ordinary citizen ?      We must  record our  deep appreciation  of Shri Ganpule who has  appeared  amicus  curiae  and  proceed  further  to register our  profound satisfaction  at the  fair and  frank statement made by Shri U. P. Singh for the State who rightly pointed out  that the continued detentions in the face of s. 167(2) were indefensible.      We direct  the release forthwith of the two petitioners on their  own bond  without sureties. This Court has held in earlier  cases  that  bail  does  not  involve  a  necessary component of  sureties. We, therefore, direct that on taking the personal recognizance from the petitioners, both of them will be  set free  subject to  such other  legal proceedings that the State may take if so warranted.      We have  stated  earlier  that  in  the  population  of prisoners there may be many other whose legal illiteracy and pecuniary indigence  may have  forbidden their  moving  this Court or the High Court by way of habeas corpus petition. It is a  bad state of affairs when we see the Bihar State being oblivious  or   callous  to   the  prisoners   whom  it   is warehousing. For  what purpose,  one knows not. It may be an act of penitence on the part of the authorities of the state and also  of cleansing  of  conscience  if  only  a  special officer  with  judicial  experience  or  other  law  officer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

familiar with  criminal justice  were appointed  to make  an extensive survey  and study  all the  cases of  prisoners to find out  whether illegal  custody has  become a large scale phenomenon. After 1110 all, the  State is also the guardian of the people’s freedom and must, activist fashion set in motion measures to enlarge those prisoners  who are held in custody without the warrant of fair procedure.      With these  directions we  direct the  release  of  the petitioners on their own bonds in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each. P.B.R.    Petition allowed. 1111