2004 (8) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Jadavpur University, including the present petitioners, under the guidance of Mr. Biswanath Rana aged about 55 years and Mrs. Ira Rana aged about 45 years went to Chandipur, Orissa during summer vacation for 3 days. The excursion team consisting of eight persons reached Chandipur in the morning of 13.5.95 at about 11.00 A.M. They had their accommodation in Shantinivas Guest House. On 16.5.95 when the team was ready to leave Chandipur in the morning at about 7.00 A.M. for Calcutta, it came to the notice of other members of the team that Miss Sushmita Dhar was missing. The other members of the team immediately informed the matter to the manager of the Guest House, as also Chandipur Police Station, where a case was registered being FIR No. 272 dated 16.5.95. The missing girl was searched by the officers of Chandipur P.S. but she could not be traced. The de facto complainant also went to Chandipur and requested the officers of Chandipur P.S. to trace out his missing daughter. But no fruitful result came out. The father of the victim, Susmita, thereafter came to Calcutta and on the basis of his complainant, present case was registered with Thakurpukur Police Station. Investigation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the officers of the CID on 16.7.2004 and were produced before the learned SDJM, Alipore. The prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Magistrate and on the prayer of the Investigating Officer of the case, the accused persons were remanded to police custody for 4 days i.e. till 19.7.2004. Against such order of rejection, the accused persons moved an application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Session Judge, Alipore. It was brought to the notice of the learned Session Judge that the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the then learned Session Judge in the year 1995, but flouting such order of anticipatory bail, police arrested the accused persons. From the order sheet of the learned Session Judge, it appears that the learned Public Prosecutor also admitted the position that the accused persons were on anticipatory bail and their arrest was not justified. In such circumstances by his order dated 17.7.04, the learned Session Judge granted interim bail to the accused persons and called for the case diary on the date fixed i.e. on 22.7.04. 7. On 22.7.04 when the matter was placed before the learned Session Judge for confirmation of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ami, what is provided in the said section is that such police custody should not exceed a total period of 15 days as a whole. It is submitted that there are cases in which remand to police custody becomes very much necessary, even after the expiry of first 15 days at a later stage for the purpose of investigation when some fresh materials are collected by the Investigating Officer. In the present case, it is submitted by Mr. Goswami, although initially prayer for police custody was allowed for 4 days, i.e., from 16.7.04 to 19.7.04. The Investigating Officer could not make any further prayer for police custody as the accused was on interim bail granted by the learned Session Judge during that period and such prayer could be made on 31.7.2004, after interim bail was cancelled. Since four days' police custody was initially granted by the learned Magistrate, the investigating agency is entitled to get the police custody for the remaining period of 11 days. 11. Mr. Moitra, learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant supports the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submits that under the provision of Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. Moitra that the accused persons were remanded to police custody initially for a period of 4 days (16.7.04 to 19.7.04), the Investigating Officer could not make any prayer for further police custody as the accused persons were on interim bail during that period. So, considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate should have allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer for police custody of the accused for a further period of 11 days. 15. Mr. Sekhar Bose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused/opposite parties submits that the mandate of Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that there cannot be any detention in police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days. Referring to proviso (a) to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure it is submitted by Mr. Bose that where the Magistrate is satisfied that further detention beyond the period of 15 days is necessary, the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of 15 days. The words "otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days", make it clear that there cannot be a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... words "otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days" in the proviso, it has to be held that the custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days can only be judicial custody during the rest of the periods of ninety days or sixty days and that police custody if found necessary can be ordered only during the first period of fifteen days. To this extent, the view taken in Dharam Pal's case is correct." 18. Next judgment relied upon by Mr. Bose is reported in 2001 CriLJ 2942 (Budh Singh v. State of Punjab). The judgment reported in 1992 CriLJ 2768 referred to above was also taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that there cannot be any detention in police custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days. 19. Next judgment relied upon by Mr. Bose is reported in 1986 SCC (Cri) 321 (Chaganti v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 167(2) proviso (a) (i) and (ii) of the Code and held that the period of fifteen days, ninety days or sixty days prescribed therein are to be computed from the date of remand of the accused and not from the date of his arre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is recorded by the learned Session Judge in his order that the attitude of the CID officers refusing to receive the release orders on repeated approach was a direct interference in the judicial functioning and CID has shown no respect for the law, and this attitude of CID is highly contemptuous and the at the same time illegal. Mr. Bose submits that as a result of such conduct of the CID officers the accused persons had to suffer wrongful confinement for three days in police custody. 22. Considering all these aspects, the learned Session Judge directed the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, West Bengal to supply the names of all the officers within 7 days from the said date of the order, who were responsible for such illegal activities, for starting appropriate proceeding against those officers for violation of Courts orders. Mr. Bose points out that although such direction was given by the learned Session Judge on 30.7.2004, till date the names of such officers have not been supplied by the S.S., CID, which is again a violation of Court's order. 23. Mr. Bose further points out that after illegal/wrongful confinement of the accused persons when they were produced ....