RAJ NARAIN versus SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI.

RAJ NARAIN versus SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI.

By majority, it was held that in special circumstances where custody is transferred to the Supreme Court, a Magistrate may extend remand without production of the accused, and mere communication of the extension, with intimation to the Court and prisoner, suffices for legal compliance. Therefore, Raj Narain's detention was valid pending proper remand orders.

Parties
Petitioner: Raj Narain; Respondent: Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 1970
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction
Outcome
By majority, the petition for release is rejected; dissent held remand and detention illegal and would have allowed release.
Legal Topics
Remand Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Personal Liberty
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Remand Procedure Habeas Corpus Personal Liberty

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Narain

Petitioner

Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Original Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether remand orders passed in absence of the accused are illegal under s.344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
  2. 2 Whether the detention of Raj Narain after midnight of August 28, 1970, is illegal due to remand orders being made behind his back.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, it was held that in special circumstances where custody is transferred to the Supreme Court, a Magistrate may extend remand without production of the accused, and mere communication of the extension, with intimation to the Court and prisoner, suffices for legal compliance. Therefore, Raj Narain's detention was valid pending proper remand orders.

Court Disposition

By majority, the petition for release is rejected; dissent held remand and detention illegal and would have allowed release.

Orders

  • Raj Narain's custody is valid and he is not entitled to release on his fresh petition. Majority decision holds detention proper; dissent would set petitioner at liberty forthwith.