Police remand after bail requires exceptional, specific justification; custody cannot be used mechanically to dilute personal liberty.

Police custody remains an exception and may be authorised only on clear, cogent, and judicially scrutinised grounds under Article 22(2), Section 57, and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The text explains that a Magistrate must record strong, specific reasons showing genuine investigative necessity, and that this scrutiny becomes stricter once the accused has already been granted bail. On the stated facts, the absence of convincing reasons, together with the prior withdrawal of the complaint after compromise, made the grant of police remand unjustified and unsustainable. The commentary reaffirms that remand cannot be ordered mechanically or to dilute liberty already protected by bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether police remand could be granted on the facts of the case, particularly after the accused had already been enlarged on bail, and whether the Magistrate and the High Court had applied the statutory safeguards governing police custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Police custody is an exception and not the rule. The statutory scheme under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires prompt production before a Magistrate and permits detention in police custody only within tightly controlled limits and only on judicially scrutinised reasons. The grant of police remand demands a strong and specific justification showing that further investigation cannot effectively proceed without such custody. That requirement becomes stricter where the accused has already been granted bail, because custody for investigation cannot be used casually to dilute the protection of liberty already conferred by a competent court. On the facts, the complaint had been withdrawn after compromise, the investigation had been revived at the instance of a third party, and police remand was sought shortly after bail without disclosing convincing reasons why police custody was indispensable.

Conclusion: The order granting police remand was unjustified and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that police custody can be authorised only on clear, cogent, and exceptional grounds, and that a Magistrate cannot grant remand mechanically, particularly where the accused is already on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Police remand after grant of bail can be ordered only on compelling, judicially scrutinised reasons showing genuine investigative necessity, and not as a routine measure or to bypass the protection of personal liberty.

---