JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Ram Chandra has filed this bail application seeking his release on bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. after loosing from both the courts below in crime number 111 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 436, 452, 201, 120B, 376, 302 IPC, Police Station Ghanghata District Sant Kabir Nagar.
2. The prosecution case against the applicant as is perceptible from the FIR (annexure no 1), lodged by Smt. Murati Devi, (widow of Ram Chandra) informant on 21.4.2005, at 4 AM, at PS Ghanghata district Sant Kabir Nagar, which was registered as crime number 111 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 436, 452, 201, 120B, 376, 302 IPC, are that on the intervening night of 20/21.4.2005 she came out of her house on hearing the shout of thief when Virendra Singh,Amar Nath Pradeep, and the present applicant Ram Chandra entered into her house saying that her daughter Roma is a debauch and that they had come there after murdering Harish Chandra son of Vishram. The informant pleaded that her daughter is very chaste but she was assaulted by Pradeep and Verendra and thereafter the miscreants abducted Roma from the back door of the house. They pushed informant and the two daughters of Roma namely Ambika and Anchal aged about 9 and 6 years respectively and also bolted the door of the house from outside. After this informant heard shrieks of Roma that she was being raped and she was crying for help. As it was night no body came to her rescue. The accused set Roma, to fire and made their escape good threatening informant that if she will not leave the place she will also be burnt to death. Roma died because of burn injuries and the household articles of the informant were also burnt. The informant got the FIR scribed through Shatrughan and lodged it at the police station as has been mentioned above. The autopsy report of Roma, the deceased was performed on 21.4.2005 (Annexure No. 2) showed that her body was extensively burnt and the cause of her death was ante mortem burn injuries. How ever no opinion about rape could be given as the body was badly burnt. On the said allegations that counsel for the applicant has applied for the release of the applicant on bail.
3. I have heard Sri Daya Shankar Misra learned senior counsel for the applicant in support of this bail application and the learned AGA in opposition.
4. In this bail application the only ground which has been urged by the learned Counsel is that remand order under Section 309 Cr.P.C is not accordance with law and therefore the applicant should be released on bail. He contended that at the stage of committal under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can remand the accused to custody and until such commitment has passed order under sub Clause (a) of Section 209 Cr.P.C. and thereafter under sub Clause (b) remanded him to custody until conclusion of trial. He submitted that under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. the Session's court could remand the accused to custody at the time of adjourning the case. He contended that this remand can not be for more that 15 days and in the present case there is nothing to show that the accused was remanded to custody for 15 days only but infact the order sheet does not contain any order of remand. He drew the attention of the court on the order sheet. He relied upon a judgment reported in 1973 Cr.L.J page 1458 Urooi Abbas v. State of U.P.
5. Learned AGA contrarily submitted that the accused is one of the main assailant who is guilty of gang rape and murder of an innocent lady in the most gruesome manner and she was charred to death by burning her. There is an eye witness account for the same and the remand order does not require any detailed order and the same was passed in accordance with law and only fifteen days remand were granted and in this respect he pointed out to annexure appended along with the Supplementary affidavit and the remand date sheet sent to him by the investigating officer along with the instructions on this bail application. He contended that the accused does not deserve to be released on bail and his bail application deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed at the bar by the rival sides. The contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant though seems to be attractive but in fact, in essence, is devoid of merit. It has been held in Urooj Abbas v. State of UP 1973 Cr.L.J. page 1458 in para 17 thereof as follows:
It is only a postponement or adjournment which requires an order in writing and the reasons thereof, and not the act of remanding, which, If I may say so, can be evidenced by a mere warrant of remand signed by the Magistrate.
7. The same view has been expressed by this court in In re Kunjan Nadar's case, which is quoted with approval in the aforesaid case of Urooj Abbas. It has been held in the case In re Kunjan Nadar AIR 1955 Trav -co 74 as follows:
The reasons to be stated as per the above provision are the reasons for the adjournment of the case and not the reasons for the remand. When a person charged with the commission of a non bailable offence is produced before the court unless he is admitted to bail the court remands him to custody. This is done as a matter of course and is the only way to make him available for trial.
8. Thus for remanding the accused to custody during the trial no detailed order is necessary by the trial court. A mere signing of remand sheet is enough for a valid remand. More over this court has the occasion to consider the said point in the case of Mohd. Tahir v. State of UP 1996 ACC (33) 874. In the aforesaid judgment this court has held thus:
The full bench decision of our court Urooj Abbas v. State of UP laid down the law that there is no need for the Magistrate to record any order of the remand on the file of the case nor is there any need or requirment compelling the court to record reasons for remanding to accused to jail. Once the case is being adjourned in certain contingencies, the Magistrate or the court concerned has got descrition to remand the accused to jail and so by a warrant of remand, the accused if remanded to jail that is sufficient compliance irrespective of the fact that the remand warrant is stereotype.
9. Further In the case of Sujeet Singh v. State of U.P. 1984 ALJ 375 this court has taken a view that if there is any defect in remand it stands cured after passing of a valid remand. In this connection the division bench judgment of this court in Raahvendra Singh v. State of U.P. 1983 ALJ is also very relevant and negates the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant accused.
10. Thus from the discussions made above I don't find any force in the submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant. I see no reason to release the applicant on bail. The bail prayer of the applicant is therefore rejected and this bail application is dismissed.