Police remand requires reasoned judicial application of mind; mechanically refusing further custody was found unsustainable.

Police remand must be exercised on reasonable grounds and material before the Magistrate, and a refusal must briefly disclose reasons showing due application of mind. A non-speaking or mechanically reasoned order refusing further remand is not in accordance with law. On the facts described, the investigation involved voluminous records, material had to be confronted to the accused, and custodial interrogation was needed for further investigation. The refusal orders were found bereft of sound reasoning and reflecting a casual approach, so the refusal of further police remand was held unsustainable and custody with the Directorate of Enforcement was directed till 28.11.2019.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders refusing further police remand were unsustainable for want of proper application of mind and reasons, and whether the respondents were required to be remanded for custodial interrogation for further investigation.

Analysis: Police remand is a judicial function to be exercised on the basis of reasonable grounds and material placed before the Magistrate. The order on remand need not be elaborate, but it must briefly disclose reasons showing due application of mind. A non-speaking or mechanically reasoned refusal of remand is not in accordance with law. On the facts placed before it, the Court found that the investigation involved voluminous records, material had to be confronted to the accused, and further custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation. The impugned orders were found to be bereft of sound reasoning and to reflect a casual approach.

Conclusion: The refusal of further police remand was held unsustainable, and the respondents were ordered to be remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement till 28.11.2019.

---