- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- [Holiday Hearing] MP HC Refuses...
[Holiday Hearing] MP HC Refuses Interim Bail In A Criminal Case To Computer Baba In His Habeas Plea, Directs To Approach Proper Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
15 Nov 2020 3:36 PM GMT
![[Holiday Hearing] MP HC Refuses Interim Bail In A Criminal Case To Computer Baba In His Habeas Plea, Directs To Approach Proper Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2020/11/15/750x450_384639-computer-baba.jpg "[Holiday Hearing] MP HC Refuses Interim Bail In A Criminal Case To Computer Baba In His Habeas Plea, Directs To Approach Proper Court")
In a special hearing held on Diwali vacation (November 15), the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Computer Baba alias Namdev Das Tyagi in a criminal case registered by Gandhinagar police for allegedly manhandling a panchayat staffer before the demolition of alleged illegal construction at his ashram near Indore.The Court was hearing a Habeas...
In a special hearing held on Diwali vacation (November 15), the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Computer Baba alias Namdev Das Tyagi in a criminal case registered by Gandhinagar police for allegedly manhandling a panchayat staffer before the demolition of alleged illegal construction at his ashram near Indore.
The Court was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Computer Baba an ex-cabinet minister of Madhya Pradesh. Allegedly, on account of allegation of illegal construction, his Ashram was demolished and he was detained. Later, another FIR was lodged, allegedly for misbehaving with the Panchayat Secretary and interfering in the process of demolition.
There were two proceedings against him to which he was detailed by police.
The first one was initiated under Section 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.). The second was a Criminal Case registered against him Under for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 294, 186, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 3 of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioner's contention is that on 08.11.2020, on account of allegation of illegal construction, his Ashram was demolished and he was detained on 08.11.2020 itself along with his disciples. The petitioner's further contention is that his six disciples were released on 09.11.2020, however, he has not been released and no order was passed in the matter.
It has also been stated that as per requirement of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if a person is under detention beyond 24 hours, an order has to be passed authorizing his detention and as nothing was being done in the matter, a revision was preferred before the District Judge, Indore, which was taken up on 11.11.2020. On 11.11.2012, it was informed that some order has been passed earlier in respect of the detention and the revision was disposed of.
it was also submitted that the copy of order was not given to the petitioner nor to his counsel and after knowing the contents of the order, the petitioner came to know that he has been directed to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for his release to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Magistrate.
A Division Bench of Justices SC Sharma and Vivek Rusia observed that in connection to the allegation of encroachment of land, there is already an order dated November 9 directing the Petitioner-accused to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Bench ordered,
"So far as the prayer for grant of interim relief is concerned, there is already an order dated 09.11.2020 directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/-, he has prepared a bank guarantee also, and therefore, the State is directed to accept the bank guarantee and to release the petitioner."
It has made clear that in case the Sub Divisional Magistrate creates any hurdle or objection in respect of the bank guarantee in respect of the release of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Indore.
Criminal Case
The State had argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for grant of bail / anticipatory bail and a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus is not maintainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
It further stated that so far as the other criminal cases are concerned, the Petitioner shall be free to file a bail application under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the first instance before appropriate forum.
Interestingly, the Petitioner had placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court granting the relief of habeas corpus to Arnab Goswami, against an order of remand.
Though not making any explicit remarks about the same in its order, the Court did not apply this precedent and relegated the Petitioner to avail his alternate remedy.
"The Registry of this Court has informed this Court that in the District Court, a Judicial Officer at the rank of Additional District Judge as well as Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be available tomorrow, and therefore, the petitioner shall be free to submit his bail application in respect of other criminal cases and the bail application of the petitioner shall be decided on the same day in accordance with law," the Bench ordered.
In Arnab Goswami's case, whereas the State vehemently argued that the Bombay's High Court's order relegating him to alternate remedy was justified inasmuch as a writ of habeas is not maintainable against an order of remand, the Top Court had observed that "Technicality cannot be a ground to deny someone personal liberty."
In the case at hand, the Petitioner had argued that the copy of order dated November 9 was not given to him. Further that, when he became aware of the order and offered to furnish the bank guarantee as directed therein, the authorities did not accept the bank guarantee.
The State on the other hand submitted that authorities were ready to accept the bank guarantee, however, it was not submitted, and therefore, the petitioner had not been released.
The matter is listed for hearing on December 2, 2020.
Case Title: Namdev Das Tyagi @ Computer Baba v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Appearance: Advocate Ravindra Singh Chhabra (for Petitioner); AAG Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav (for State)
Read Order
