Illegal refusal of timely police remand cannot defeat investigation; bail denied where custody and inquiry remained necessary.

A timely prayer for further police remand cannot be defeated by a Magistrate's erroneous refusal based on an incorrect view that the custody period had expired; the court's own mistake should not prejudice the investigating agency, so the matter may be reconsidered as on the original date of application. The earlier refusal was set aside and the request for further remand was remitted for fresh consideration. On the facts, the Court also found no ground to enlarge the accused on bail, having regard to the allegations and the need for investigation, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing further police remand on the ground that the initial period for police custody had already expired. (ii) Whether bail ought to be granted to the accused in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing further police remand on the ground that the initial period for police custody had already expired.

Analysis: The request for further police custody had been made within the first 15 days of detention, but it was wrongly refused because the Magistrate proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the statutory period had already elapsed. The Court held that an act of the Court should not prejudice a party and that the investigating agency could not be deprived of its right to seek police remand merely because the earlier refusal was illegal. The earlier error was therefore required to be neutralised by treating the matter as if it was being considered on the date when the prayer had originally been made.

Conclusion: The refusal of police remand was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the prayer for further police remand as on the original date.

Issue (ii): Whether bail ought to be granted to the accused in the facts of the case.

Analysis: In view of the nature of the allegations, the need for investigation and the conclusion that the earlier denial of police custody was caused by an erroneous judicial order, the Court found no ground to enlarge the accused on bail at that stage.

Conclusion: Bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by declining bail to the accused and by directing reconsideration of the prayer for further police remand in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a timely prayer for police remand is illegally refused by the Court, the investigating agency cannot be deprived of that right by the court's own error, and the matter may be treated as if considered on the original date of the application.

---