9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order refusing to grant remand has any bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself and its ultimate decision. 2. Whether an order refusing to grant remand can affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner. 3. Whether an order refusing to grant police remand is an interlocutory order or an intermediate or a final order. 4. Whether a revision against an order refusing to grant police remand is maintainable u/s 397 CrPC. Summary: Issue 1: Bearing on Trial Proceedings and Ultimate Decision The court considered whether an order refusing to grant remand impacts the trial proceedings or the ultimate decision of the case. The petitioner argued that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, a remand order does not affect the trial's progress or its outcome. The State contended that denying remand could impede the investigation, thereby affecting the trial and its decision. The court concluded that refusing remand has a direct bearing on the trial proceedings and can affect the ultimate decision of the case. Issue 2: Effect on Trial Progress and Decision The petitioner maintained that an order refusing remand should be considered an interlocutory order, as it does not influence the trial's progress or decision. The State argued that denying remand could hinder the investigation, thus impacting the trial. The court agreed with the State, stating that denying remand could affect the trial's progress and decision by depriving the Investigating Agency of necessary custodial interrogation. Issue 3: Nature of Order Refusing Police Remand The court examined whether an order refusing police remand is interlocutory, intermediate, or final. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, suggesting that a remand order is purely interlocutory. The State argued that refusing remand is a final order, as it concludes the proceedings related to remand. The court determined that an order refusing police remand is a final order, thereby making it subject to revision u/s 397 CrPC. Issue 4: Maintainability of Revision u/s 397 CrPC The court explored whether a revision against an order refusing police remand is maintainable u/s 397 CrPC. The petitioner argued that such an order is interlocutory and thus not subject to revision. The State contended that it is a final order, making revision maintainable. The court concluded that an order refusing police remand is a final order, and a revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is maintainable. Final Conclusion: 1. An order refusing to grant remand has a direct bearing on the trial proceedings and can affect the ultimate decision of the case. 2. An order refusing to grant remand may affect the trial's progress or its decision by depriving the Investigating Agency of effective custodial interrogation. 3. An order refusing to grant police remand is a final order, and a revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is maintainable. The court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
|
