2010 (5) TMI 963

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l.M. Nos. 28847 and 28849 of 2008, allowing the application filed by the Station House Officer, Hodal Police Station, praying for police remand of the accused, Devender Kumar, for three days. 3. It appears that when the Appellant No. 1, Devender Kumar, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 8th October, 2008, in connection with case FIR No. 333 dated 18th September, 2008, registered at Hodal Police Station, District Faridabad under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC an application was made for police remand by an officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, which, was rejected vide an order dated 8.10.2008, as the said application was contrary to the provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which provide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and recovered. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and 28849-M of 2008, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, urged that the order of the High Court impugned in these proceedings, directing cancellation of bail granted to the Appellants and further allowing the application for police remand filed, on behalf of the Investigating Authorities and directing the arrest of the Appellants herein and committing them to police custody, was not only contrary to the established principles relating to cancellation of bail, but also violated the provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. Mr. Luthra contended that on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by the Appellants, were yet to be recovered and such recovery could be made only under custodial interrogation. The same view was expressed by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana. 7. As to the second branch of Mr. Luthra's submissions that a second application for police remand was not maintainable after the dismissal of the first, reference was made to a decision of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 wherein the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.c. were gone into in some detail and the very question which is now before us was also considered and it was held that within the first 15 days per....