2004 (12) TMI 736 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Upholds Remand Order, Denies Stay Request Due to Offence Severity and Prima Facie Involvement.

Gopalbhai Chaturbhai Amin Versus The State of Gujarat

The HC dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, affirming the remand order by the Addl. Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The order ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the remand order passed by the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).2. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Compliance with the 15-day period for police custody as per Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Tenability of the revision application against the rejection of the remand by the Judicial Magistrate (FC).Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Remand Order:The applicant was arrested on 31/10/2004 for offences under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The State's initial remand application on 1/11/2004 was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate (FC). Subsequently, a revision application was filed by the State, and the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge granted a 2-day remand from 4/12/2004 to 6/12/2004. The applicant's counsel argued that the remand granted after the initial 15 days from the date of arrest was illegal, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I v. Anupam J. Kulkarni. However, the court found that the remand application and the revision application were filed within the 15-day period, making the remand order legal and in consonance with the law.2. Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court:The applicant's counsel contended that the remand order was revisable under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court, however, referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State and Ors. v. NMT Joy Immaculate, which held that a remand order is an interlocutory order and not revisable. The court emphasized that the grant of remand does not affect the trial's proceedings or its ultimate decision, thus making the revision application against the remand order untenable.3. Compliance with the 15-day Period for Police Custody:The applicant's counsel argued that police custody cannot be granted after the first 15 days from the date of arrest. The court clarified that both the remand application and the revision application were filed within the 15-day period, and the delay in the order's pronouncement does not affect its legality. The court distinguished the present case from the cited Supreme Court judgment, noting that in the cited case, the remand application was filed after the 15-day period, which was not the situation here.4. Tenability of the Revision Application Against Rejection of Remand:The court addressed the applicant's contention that the revision application against the Judicial Magistrate's rejection of remand was not tenable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in State and Anr. v. NMT Joy Immaculate, which allows for a revision application against the rejection of remand as it affects the prosecution's investigation rights. The court concluded that the revision application by the State was legally permissible and justified.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the remand order passed by the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The court found the order to be just, legal, and in accordance with the facts and law. The stay granted by the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge was vacated, and the prosecution was directed to take custody of the applicant from 7/12/2004 to 9/12/2004. The request for a stay of the High Court's order was denied, considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant's prima facie involvement.