TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 160 of the Cr.P.C. by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB (SIT), Kolkata asking him to appear before the Investigating Authority at CGO Complex, BS Block, Salt Lake, Kolkata on 31.01.2015 at 11 a.m. and on receipt of such notice the petitioner attended the office of the said officer on 31.01.2015 at 11 a.m. The petitioner assisted the process of investigation but surprisingly enough he was informed that he has been arrested by the Opposite Party at 6 p.m. in the evening. Thereafter he was taken to N.R.S. Hospital for medical examination and thereafter he was referred to SSKM hospital wherein he was admitted. Since he was admitted in hospital he was not produced before the Learned Magistrate on 01.02.2015. However, the Learned Magistrate on hearing both the sides rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner and took the accused/petitioner in judicial custody till 13.02.2015. On 03.02.2015 the O.P. filed an application before the Learned Magistrate praying for direction upon the Superintendent, SSKM Hospital and the Jail Authority for production of the petitioner after being discharged from the hospital and the Learned Magistrate accordingly passed or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the O.P. on the contrary, contended that since the accused person was not produced in person before the Learned Magistrate on 01.02.2015, the order passed by the Learned Magistrate remanding the petitioner to judicial custody is without jurisdiction and they have already challenged such order before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore and such order has been stayed. He further contended that the fifteen days should be counted from the date of production of the accused in person before the Learned Magistrate as per provision of the Clause (b) of the proviso of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Learned Magistrate was quite right and justified in passing the order of police remand of the petitioner till 21.02.2015 as he was produced in person before the Learned Magistrate for the first time on 07.02.2015. Thus, according to him, the impugned order is quite legal and correct and it should not be interfered with. 6. I have considered the rival submission and contention advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the decisions placed and perused the entire materials available on record with special attention to the order impugned. 7. The moot question which no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olence upon the person arrested, and the approximate time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted. (3) Where an examination is made under Sub-section (1), a copy of the report of such examination shall be furnished by the Medical Officer or registered Medical Practitioner, as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person nominated by such arrested person." 11. Section 55A Cr.P.C. provides that it shall be duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused. The duty under Section 55A is subject to the duty under Section 56 Cr.P.C. Section 56 Cr.P.C. enjoins duty on the Police Officer making arrest to take the person so arrested or send that person before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case or before the Officer-in-Charge of a police station. In the case in hand, the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB (SIT), Kolkata effected arrest of the accused. Therefore, it is his duty to take or send the person arrested before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. Section 57 Cr.P.C. commands that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Magistrate, becomes illegal as well as unconstitutional. When the accused was arrested on 31.01.2015 at 6 p.m. at the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., SCB (SIT), Kolkata, the accused should have been produced before the Magistrate at Alipore immediately thereafter or within reasonable time. Without there being prima facie case against the accused from the evidence collected by the said C.B.I. Officer, he would not have arrested the accused on 31.01.2015 at 6 p.m. Instead of producing the accused before the Magistrate either on the same day or within twenty four hours thereof by 6 p.m. on 01.02.2015 after getting the accused examined by Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Kolkata either on 31.01.2015 or on 01.02.2015 before 6 p.m., the said C.B.I. Officer admitted the accused into the S.S.K.M. hospital on 31.01.2015 and prayed for necessary order before the Learned Magistrate who passed order for sending the accused into the judicial custody till 13.02.2015 after rejecting the prayer for bail moved on behalf of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was produced on 07.02.2015 and on the prayer made by the said C.B.I. Officer, the Learned Magistrate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....within twenty four hours of his arrest. His action/inaction in this regard is highly deplorable. 14. In so far as granting of further police remand of seven days more to the accused in this case by the Learned Magistrate on 15.02.2015 till 21.02.2015, it has to be seen whether it was granted in accordance with law. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) cited by the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has dealt with this point, namely considering the scope of remand under Sections 57 & 167 of the Cr.P.C. has held thus:-- "Having regard to the words "in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole" occurring in sub-section (2) of section 167 now the question is whether it can be construed that the police custody, if any, should be within this period of first fifteen days are less whether the police can ask subsequently for police custody for full period of fifteen days not availed earlier or for the remaining days during the rest of the periods of ninety days or sixty days covered by the proviso. The decisions mentioned above do not deal with this question precisely except the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the decision 2010 Cr.L.J. 3849 (SC) : 2010(6) SCC 753 (Devender Kumar and Anr. V. State of Haryana and Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further explained the legal position as follows:-- "12. 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 CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 : AIR 1992 SC 1768) 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' period of remand, the Magistrate could direct police custody other than judicial custody, but if the investigation was not completed within the first 15 days' period of remand, no further police remand could be made. It was emphasised that police remand would only be made during the first 15 days after arrest and production before the Magistrate and not otherwise, although, judicial remand could extend to 60 days from the date of arrest and in special cases, to 90 days. 15. With regard to the second point which was urged by M....