RAM NARAYAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS

The detention of the accused after the adjournment was illegal since there was no written order of remand as required by section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Parties: Petitioner: Ram Narayan Singh; Respondents: The State of Delhi and Others
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 12 March 1953
Procedural Posture: Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ in the Nature of Habeas Corpus / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome: Petition allowed.
Legal Topics: Habeas Corpus, Illegal Detention, Criminal Procedure Code S.344

Criminal Law Constitutional Law Habeas Corpus Illegal Detention Criminal Procedure Code S.344

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Ram Narayan Singh

Petitioner

The State of Delhi and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ in the Nature of Habeas Corpus / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

1 Legality of detention in absence of a written remand order under s.344 Criminal Procedure Code
2 Requirement for remand order in writing when case is adjourned

Ratio Decidendi

The detention of the accused after the adjournment was illegal since there was no written order of remand as required by section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed.

Orders

Petitioners are entitled to be released and are set at liberty forthwith.