Supervisory review of remand orders can still test refusal of further ED custody when factual context differs from Anupam J. Kulkarni.

Punjab and Haryana HC held that the Supreme Court ruling in Anupam J. Kulkarni had to be read in its factual setting and did not bar scrutiny of a refusal to grant further ED custody where the accused was initially remanded to ED custody, not first to judicial custody. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction could still test the legality of the remand order, and that such interference would relate back to the date of the impugned order. On the facts, repeated opportunities for interrogation had already been given, the record did not show necessity for further custodial interrogation, and the remand request was perfunctory; the refusal of further custody was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order declining further police custody remand of the accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction, and whether the principle in Anupam J. Kulkarni barred such remand on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the accused had to be understood in the factual context in which it was rendered. In that decision, the initial remand was to judicial custody and the later attempt was to convert it into police custody, which attracted the prohibition noticed by the Supreme Court. Here, however, the accused had initially been remanded to E.D. custody, and the challenge was to the subsequent refusal of further custody. The Court further held that the legality of the impugned refusal could still be examined in supervisory jurisdiction, and that interference would relate back to the date of the impugned order, so the running statutory period was not rendered ineffective merely because the accused was meanwhile in judicial custody. On the merits of the remand application, the Court found that the investigating agency had already had repeated opportunities for interrogation, the record did not support the plea of necessity for further custodial interrogation, and the remand request was perfunctory.

Conclusion: The principle in Anupam J. Kulkarni did not bar interference on the facts, but the request for further E.D. custody was found unmeritorious and the refusal of remand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging denial of further police custody remand failed, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar against police custody after the initial remand period applies only on facts analogous to those in which an accused is first placed in judicial custody and later sought to be converted into police custody; where the custody history and procedural posture are different, the precedent is distinguishable and supervisory interference remains available to test the legality of the remand order.

---