# Mahesh Dayal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 299
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-17
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 656 of 2019
- **Bench:** Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-dayal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47177
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Habeas Corpus - Issuance of -
When warranted - Detention in criminal
cases - B-warrant and P.T. warrant -
Petitioner has been taken into custody
in reference to other cases where the
bail has not yet been granted and not in
pursuance to B-warrant - The B-warrant
was issued in reference to five to seven
cases and not for all - Chart given by the
petitioner shows custody pursuant to
other cases and not in pursuant to the Bwarrant in all cases - Held, a writ of
habeas corpus is maintainable only
when it is a case of illegal detention -
Judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Dass
Ram's case distinguished holding that it
apply to the cases where accused is kept
in custody pursuant to P.T. warrant
despite his acquittal or bail. (Para 10, 12
and 14)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

8 All. Mahesh Dayal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
299
----------
(2021)08ILR A299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 656 of 2019

Mahesh Dayal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Bhavya Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Vinay Saran, Sri Pradeep Kumar
Mishra

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Habeas Corpus - Issuance of -
When warranted - Detention in criminal
cases - B-warrant and P.T. warrant -
Petitioner has been taken into custody
in reference to other cases where the
bail has not yet been granted and not in
pursuance to B-warrant - The B-warrant
was issued in reference to five to seven
cases and not for all - Chart given by the
petitioner shows custody pursuant to
other cases and not in pursuant to the Bwarrant in all cases - Held, a writ of
habeas corpus is maintainable only
when it is a case of illegal detention -
Judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Dass
Ram's case distinguished holding that it
apply to the cases where accused is kept
in custody pursuant to P.T. warrant
despite his acquittal or bail. (Para 10, 12
and 14)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-
1. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1151 of 2010,
K.S. Muthuramalingam
Vs State decided by Madras High Court on
01.07.2010
2. Ram Dass Ram Vs St. of Bihar & anr., AIR
1987 SC 1333

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep
Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vinay
Saran, Senior Advocate for the respondents
and the learned A.G.A.

2. A writ of habeas corpus has been
filed alleging illegal detention of the
petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that an FIR was registered against
the petitioner followed by many other FIRs
on same set of facts. The bail was granted
to him in few cases but the petitioner has
not been released. The petitioner is
detained pursuant to B-Warrant though the
detention pursuant to B-Warrant is not
permissible.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has made reference of the judgment of
Madras High Court in the case of
K.S.Muthuramalingam vs. State dated
01.07.2010 in Habeas Corpus Petition
No.1151 of 2010. There a reference of
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Ram Dass Ram vs. State of Bihar and
another, AIR 1987 SC 1333 has been
given. It has been held that detention
pursuant to P.T. Warrant is illegal if the
accused has already been acquitted or
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granted bail. In the instant case, the
petitioner has been granted bail in the
criminal case registered against him, thus
the said bail should have been taken to be
bail in all other cases because allegation in
all the FIRs subsequent to first are
identical.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
made a reference to the counter affidavit so as
the order passed by this Court to show
admission of the A.S.G. regarding detention
of the petitioner pursuant to B-Warrant. It is
admitted by the learned A.G.A. that one
cannot be detained pursuant to B-Warrant. A
reference of the cases has been given where
B-Warrant has been issued. Accordingly, the
petitioner should be released.

6. The petition has been contested by
the A.S.G. He submits that a reference of BWarrant has been given ignoring as to how
many cases have been registered against the
petitioner and in which he has been arrested.
At one stage, it was brought to to the notice
of the Court that petitioner has obtained bail
in around 50 cases. The aforesaid is coming
out from the order dated 1.9.2020 passed by
this Court. The report of other cases
registered against the petitioner was also
sought which has not been given to the Court.

7. It is submitted by counsel for
petitioner that around 100 cases have been
registered against the petitioner. Copy of all
the FIRs has not been enclosed to show that it
contains one and same allegation. Petitioner
can be taken into custody pursuant to the
Criminal cases lodged against him unless bail
is granted in such cases.

8. Grant of bail in one case does not
mean bail in all cases registered separately.
If that would have been so, there was no
reason for the petitioner to apply for bail in
each case because according to him, bail
has been granted in around 50 cases leaving
others. In view of the above, it is not a case
of illegal detention because petitioner is not
in custody pursuant to the B-Warrant but in
reference to number of cases lodged against
him. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss
the petitioner.

9. We have considered the rival
submission of parties and perused the
record.

10. A writ of habeas corpus is
maintainable only when it is a case of
illegal detention. The petitioner was taken
into custody pursuant to the criminal cases
lodged against him. At one stage when bail
was granted in one case, the petitioner
could not be released in absence of
completion of formalities. It is coming out
from the order dated 15.10.20219 passed
by this Court. An affidavit was filed by the
petitioner to show compliance of required
formalities for release. It is however a fact
that petitioner is involved in more than 100
cases as per the statement of the counsel for
the petitioner himself. It is alleged to be on
one and same set of facts and allegation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is fair
enough to state that he has not filed a copy
of all the FIRs lodged against the petitioner
to verify that all the FIRs contain one and
same allegation.

11. In view of the above, it could not
be
proved
that
petitioner
has
been
implicated on same set of allegations. It is
otherwise not a writ petition to challenge
the FIRs but the writ petition for release
alleging
illegal
detention.
The
main
argument of learned counsel is that once
bail is granted in one case, it is to be treated
to be a bail in all other cases. The argument
aforesaid cannot be accepted rather to be
8 All. Kanhaiya Awasthi Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
301
rejected summarily. No judgment on the
issue or provision of law has been shown.
Bail in one case cannot be taken to be bail
in all other criminal cases registered
separately. If bail in one case is to be taken
as bail in all the cases than it could not be
explained as to why petitioner applied for
bail in 50 cases. Release even after the bail
is subject to compliance of formalities of
bail order. The petitioner has been arrested
in other criminal cases or is in custody
pursuant to a remand order in cases
registered separately.

12. It is not shown that petitioner had
completed all the formalities for release on
bail in all the cases where he has been
granted bail. The fact aforesaid is relevant
for the reason that bail was granted to the
petitioner earlier in one case, he could not
be released in absence of completion of the
formalities. It was completed later on but it
has to be in all the cases where petitioner
has been granted bail. It is not on record to
show that required formalities for release
after grant of bail were completed by the
petitioner in all the cases where bail was
granted. The petitioner has been taken into
custody in reference to other cases where
the bail has not yet been granted and not in
pursuance to B-Warrant. The B-Warrant
was issued in reference to five to seven
cases and not for all. Even if the chart
given by the petitioner is taken into
consideration, it shows custody pursuant to
other cases and not in pursuant to the BWarrant in all cases.

13. In the light of aforesaid, the
judgment of Madras High Court in the case
of K.S.Muthuramalingam (supra) would
have no application so as the judgment in
the case of Ram Dass Ram (supra). There
the issue was in regard to custody of the
accused pursuant on P.T.Warrant. The
custody pursuant to P.T.Warrant may not
be proper after acquittal or bail but in the
instant case, the petitioner has not been
taken into custody pursuant to B-Warrant
(P.T.) but pursuant to other pending cases.

14. The judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Ram Dass Ram (supra) would
not apply to the facts of this case. The
custody is not justified pursuant to the P.T.
Warrant when accused has been acquitted
or released on bail. The P.T.Warrants are
issued for the production of the accused
confined in jail in reference to other cases.
It is issued for production of the accused
thus cannot be used to keep the accused in
custody even after the bail or acquittal.
Thus the judgment of the Apex Court
would apply to the cases where accused is
kept in custody pursuant to P.T. Warrant
despite his acquittal or bail. In this case,
petitioner is in custody in reference to the
cases registered against him.

15. In view of the discussion made
above, we do not find it to be a case of
illegal detention and accordingly the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A301
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Habeas Corpus No. 24213 of 2020

Kanhaiya Awasthi ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nadeem Murtaza, Sudhanshu S. Tripathi