Bail cancellation and police remand limits: custody for recovery cannot justify cancellation, and police custody ends after fifteen days.

Bail could not be cancelled merely because disclosures were made and custodial interrogation was considered necessary for recovery of articles, in the absence of misuse of bail, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or absconding; the cancellation order was set aside and bail restored. Police custody under Section 167(1) CrPC could be authorised only within the first fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate; a remand beyond that statutory window was impermissible. The High Court's order directing re-arrest was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted by the Magistrate could be cancelled merely because the accused had made disclosures and custodial interrogation was thought necessary for recovery of articles. (ii) Whether police custody could be ordered after the expiry of the statutory remand period under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted by the Magistrate could be cancelled merely because the accused had made disclosures and custodial interrogation was thought necessary for recovery of articles.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires a stronger basis than the mere need for recovery or the existence of disclosures during investigation. In the absence of any allegation that the accused had misused bail, interfered with the investigation, tampered with evidence, threatened witnesses, or absconded, the earlier bail order could not be set aside only on the ground that police custody was desired for recovery of allegedly undisclosed articles.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether police custody could be ordered after the expiry of the statutory remand period under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The governing rule is that police custody can be authorised only within the first fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate. Once that period expires, further police remand is impermissible. The Court accepted that a second application for police custody is not barred per se if it falls within the first fifteen days, but police custody cannot be granted beyond that statutory window.

Conclusion: Police remand after expiry of the initial fifteen-day period was impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order cancelling bail and directing re-arrest was set aside, and the Magistrate's order granting bail was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail cannot be cancelled absent misuse or other supervening circumstances, and police custody under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to the initial fifteen days after arrest and production before the Magistrate.

---