2015 (8) TMI 1574 - SC - Indian Laws

Remand in police custody - arrest after filing charge sheet - whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet? - Allegation of killing of nine persons and injuring large number of villagers of Village Netai of District Paschim Medinipore in West Bengal. HELD THAT - In STATE THROUGH C.B.I. VERSUS DAWOOD IBRAHIM KASKAR AND ORS. 1997 (5) TMI 453 - SUPREME COURT a three judge bench of this Court has laid down the law on the issue relating to grant of police custody of a person arrested during further investigation, and it was held that So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167. The case of DINESH DALMIA VERSUS C.B.I. 2007 (9) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail Under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. In said case, the accused/absconder (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI police custody was granted on 14.2.2006 till 24.2.2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was granted till 8.3.2006. Said accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the accused sought statutory bail Under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure as no charge sheet was filed against him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest - the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh Dalmia in upholding refusal of remand in police custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood in custody after his arrest Under Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal of police remand in the present case is against the settled principle of law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court, affirming the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the orders passed by the Magistrate, declining the police remand, are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency for an absconding accused arrested after the charge sheet is filed.

Analysis:
The case involved the killing of nine persons in a village in West Bengal. The investigation was transferred to the CBI, and a charge sheet was filed against several accused, including absconders. The absconders were later arrested, and the CBI sought their remand in police custody. However, the Magistrate rejected the remand requests, leading to appeals before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the relevant legal provisions, including Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the authorization of detention by a Magistrate. The Court also considered Section 173(8), which allows for further investigation even after a charge sheet is filed. Additionally, the Court referred to Section 309, which empowers the court to remand an accused during trial.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court referred to precedents such as the case of State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, which clarified that police remand can be sought for an accused arrested during further investigation. The Court highlighted that the power to detain an accused in police custody under Section 167 continues even after the filing of a charge sheet, especially if further interrogation is necessary.

The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent relied upon by the High Court, emphasizing that the refusal of police remand in this instance was not in line with established legal principles. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Magistrate should consider granting police remand based on the requirements and limitations of the law, especially when an accused is arrested during further investigation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed all three appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate that declined police remand. The Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the applications for police remand in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of following established legal principles in such matters.