2015 (6) TMI 1268 - HC - Indian Laws

Police custody remand quashed after fifteen-day statutory period expired under Section 167 CrPC

Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat and Ors.

The Gujarat HC quashed a remand order granting police custody after the statutory fifteen-day period had expired. The accused was arrested on 15th ... Grant of remand to petitioner - remand application filed after the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court, in CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL-I VERSUS ANUPAM J. KULKARNI [1992 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT] has considered the question in all its legal aspects, whether a person arrested and produced before the Magistrate as required under Section 167(1) of the Code, can still be remanded to the police custody after the expiry of initial period of fifteen days. It may be useful to refer to the facts in the said case. In the present case, the accused was arrested on 15th September 2014 and was produced before the learned Special Judge on 16th September 2014. The police applied for his custody on the same day by filing a remand application. For some reason or the other, although the fault is sought to be found with the accused, no orders could be passed within fifteen days from the date of the production and the impugned order was passed on 25th March 2015. It is thus clear that the first fifteen days expired by the date of the order i.e. 25th March 2015. The Court below, therefore, committed a serious error in holding that police custody could be granted after the expiry of fifteen days of the production of the accused. In C.B.I v. Anupam J.Kulkarni, it has been held that Section 167 of the Code is supplementary to Section 57, Cr.P.C. As per the Code, the investigation should be completed in the first instance within 24 hours; if not the arrested person should be brought by the police before a Magistrate as provided under Section 167 of the Code. While doing so, the police should also transmit a copy of the entries made in the diary relating to the case which is meant to afford to the Magistrate, in order to furnish the necessary information upon which, he can take the decision whether the accused should be detained in the custody further or not - the Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused either to judicial custody or police custody, but the total period of detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole, after the first remand. Within this period of fifteen days, there can be more than one order changing the nature of such custody either from police to judicial or vice-versa, as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited. A close look at the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kosanapu Ramreddy [1992 (7) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT] reveals that there is no reference at all to the decision of Anupam earlier in point of time. What is discernible from Kosanapu Ramreddy is that if the accused challenges the order of remand, and by the time his challenge is considered by the Court if the initial period of fifteen days (in that case it was 60 days because of TADA) expires, then that would not put an end to the matter. If the challenge fails, then the order passed prior to the expiry of 60 days would get revived and could be given effect to. This application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25th March 2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. Issues involved:1. Legality and validity of the order granting police remand after the initial 15 days from the date of arrest.2. Interpretation and application of Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Examination of precedents and relevant Supreme Court judgments.4. Procedural aspects and duties of the judicial authorities and public prosecutors in handling remand applications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and validity of the order granting police remand after the initial 15 days from the date of arrest:The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 25th March 2015, which granted police remand after six months and nine days from the initial judicial custody. The petitioner argued that police remand could only be ordered within the first fifteen days after arrest, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J.Kulkarni, AIR 1992 SC 1768*. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that after the expiry of the first fifteen days, the custody could only be judicial, and the order granting police remand was invalid.2. Interpretation and application of Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:Section 167(2) limits police custody to the first fifteen days after arrest. After this period, only judicial custody is permissible. Section 309(2) pertains to post-cognizance custody, which can only be judicial. The court emphasized that the provisions under Section 167(2) are clear and restrict police custody to the initial fifteen days, beyond which only judicial custody is allowed.3. Examination of precedents and relevant Supreme Court judgments:The court analyzed several precedents, including *Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986)4 SCC 481*, *CBI v. Anupam J.Kulkarni (supra)*, *State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (2000)10 SCC 438*, and *Dinesh Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007)8 SC 770*. These cases consistently held that police custody is limited to the first fifteen days after arrest. The court noted that the decision in *Anupam J.Kulkarni* was particularly relevant and binding, establishing that police custody beyond the initial fifteen days is not permissible.4. Procedural aspects and duties of the judicial authorities and public prosecutors in handling remand applications:The court criticized the lower court and public prosecutor for not adhering to the statutory requirements and Supreme Court guidelines. It was emphasized that remand applications must be heard and decided on the same day they are filed, and any adjournment should be avoided to prevent rendering the application infructuous. The court issued specific directions to ensure timely handling of remand applications, including immediate hearing and disposal of such applications, and caution against staying remand orders without substantial grounds.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned order granting police remand after the initial fifteen days, reaffirming the legal position that police custody is limited to the first fifteen days from the date of arrest. The court also provided procedural guidelines to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents in handling remand applications.