Post-cognizance police custody remand is unavailable under the Code; further investigation does not revive remand power.

After filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, Section 167(2) of the Code no longer authorises police custody remand, even if further investigation is pursued by a Special Investigation Team under Section 173(8). The distinction between further investigation and the pre-cognizance remand power was treated as material, so custody could not be directed under Section 167(2). Where the accused were already on regular bail, they could not be sent into custody for further investigation without first cancelling bail, and Section 309(2) did not justify police custody remand in that situation. The remand order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, police custody remand could be granted under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground of further investigation by a Special Investigation Team. (ii) Whether, in the facts of the case, the accused who were already on bail could be sent to custody for further investigation without first cancelling the bail, and whether remand could be ordered under Section 309(2) of the Code.

Issue (i): Whether, after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, police custody remand could be granted under Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground of further investigation by a Special Investigation Team.

Analysis: Section 167(2) governs remand at the investigation stage. Once investigation is complete, the charge-sheet is filed, and cognizance is taken, that provision no longer authorises police custody remand. Further investigation under Section 173(8) may continue, but it does not revive the pre-cognizance remand power under Section 167(2). The distinction between further investigation and re-investigation was treated as material, and the remand power after cognizance was held to lie only within the limited framework of the post-cognizance procedure.

Conclusion: The request for police custody remand could not be sustained under Section 167(2) after cognizance had been taken.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the accused who were already on bail could be sent to custody for further investigation without first cancelling the bail, and whether remand could be ordered under Section 309(2) of the Code.

Analysis: Where the accused are on regular bail, they cannot ordinarily be taken into custody unless the bail is cancelled. Section 309(2) permits remand after cognizance only if the accused is already in custody, and it does not authorise police custody remand in the manner sought here. The proper course, if custody was necessary, was first to seek cancellation of bail on sufficient material. As no cogent basis for cancellation was shown, the order directing custody could not stand.

Conclusion: The accused could not be remanded to custody without cancellation of bail, and Section 309(2) did not justify the impugned remand order in these circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The impugned remand order was unsustainable because post-cognizance police custody could not be ordered under Section 167(2), and custody of persons already on bail required cancellation of bail before any such step could be taken.

Ratio Decidendi: After filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, police custody remand cannot be granted under Section 167(2) of the Code; further investigation under Section 173(8) does not revive that power, and an accused already on bail cannot be sent to custody for that purpose without cancellation of bail.

---