Police custody remand may be completed after hospitalisation and interim bail when accused conduct frustrates investigation.

A valid police custody remand that has attained finality may be enforced for the remaining period where full execution is frustrated by the accused's hospitalisation and subsequent interim bail, especially when cancellation of bail rests on non-cooperation and misuse of liberty. The Court held that denying the unused portion of custody would reward frustration of the investigative process, so the accused could not resist the remaining remand. Pendency of separate proceedings concerning co-accused did not bar custody, because those matters were distinct and did not affect the independent question arising from the accused's own conduct. The remaining police custody remand was therefore permitted for the limited period directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused could be granted the remaining period of police custody remand after the original remand order had not been fully executed because of hospitalisation and interim bail. (ii) Whether the pendency of proceedings involving co-accused barred grant of police custody in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether the accused could be granted the remaining period of police custody remand after the original remand order had not been fully executed because of hospitalisation and interim bail.

Analysis: The original order granting seven days' police custody had attained finality. The accused, however, could not be interrogated for the full period because he was hospitalised during the custody period and thereafter obtained interim bail, during which police custody could not operate. The cancellation of interim bail was founded on non-cooperation and misuse of liberty. On these facts, the investigating agency's right to custodial interrogation had been frustrated by the accused's conduct, and denying the remainder of custody would reward such frustration of the judicial process.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to resist grant of the remaining police custody remand, and the request for custody was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the pendency of proceedings involving co-accused barred grant of police custody in the present case.

Analysis: The proceedings concerning co-accused were distinct and did not control the present dispute. The interim protection granted in those matters did not affect the independent question of custody arising from the accused's own conduct and the unexecuted remand order in this case.

Conclusion: The pendency of proceedings involving co-accused did not bar grant of police custody in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the investigating agency was permitted to exercise the remaining police custody remand for the limited period directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid police custody remand order has attained finality but its full execution is thwarted by the accused's conduct, the court may permit the remaining custody to preserve the efficacy of investigation and prevent frustration of judicial process.

---