Police custody remand and revisionability: refusal may be revisable, and bail can break custody so the time-limit does not bar reconsideration.
An order refusing police custody remand is not necessarily interlocutory where it finally determines the remand request on that occasion, so revision is maintainable against it. The statutory limit on police custody is applied with reference to continuous custody and the relevant remand period; where the accused are released on bail and custody is broken, the earlier period does not continue so as to bar reconsideration of police custody. On that reasoning, the time-limit objection failed, the challenge to the Sessions Court order was rejected, and the Magistrate was left free to consider the effect of the bail order in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) whether an order refusing police custody remand is an interlocutory order so as to bar revision; and (ii) whether the expiry of the initial period for police custody prevented reconsideration of police custody after the accused were released on bail.
Issue (i): whether an order refusing police custody remand is an interlocutory order so as to bar revision.
Analysis: An order declining police custody finally determines the remand request on that occasion and leaves nothing further to be decided on that subject before the Magistrate. The bar on revision against interlocutory orders does not apply where the order has attained finality in relation to the specific request for police custody. On that basis, the revision was held to be maintainable.
Conclusion: The revision application was maintainable and the challenge on that ground failed.
Issue (ii): whether the expiry of the initial period for police custody prevented reconsideration of police custody after the accused were released on bail.
Analysis: The rule limiting police custody is applied with reference to continuous custody and the relevant remand period. Here, the accused were not kept in police or judicial custody for more than one day because bail was granted on the same day as the refusal of police custody. That break in custody meant the earlier remand period could not be treated as continuing so as to bar reconsideration. The facts were distinguished from cases where the accused remained in custody continuously beyond the permissible period.
Conclusion: The time-limit objection failed and no interference with the order of the Sessions Court was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The applications challenging the Sessions Court order were rejected, while leaving it open to the Magistrate to consider the effect of the bail order in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing police custody remand can be revisable when it finally determines that remand request, and the statutory limit on police custody does not continue to run so as to bar reconsideration where custody has been broken by release on bail.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
