9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1815 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of Bail granted already - subsequently new offences are added - power Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure to remand the case. Whether in a case where an Accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the Accused in custody? - HELD THAT - he Appellant was already into jail custody with regard to another case and the investigating agency applied before Special Judge, NIA Court to grant production warrant to produce the Accused before the Court. The Special Judge having accepted the prayer of grant of production warrant, the Accused was produced before the Court on 26.06.2018 and remanded to custody. Thus, in the present case, production of the Accused was with the permission of the Court. Thus, the present is not a case where investigating agency itself has taken into custody the Appellant after addition of new offences rather Accused was produced in the Court in pursuance of production warrant obtained from the Court by the investigating agency Whether re-registration of F.I.R. No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second F.I. R. and is not permissible there being already a FIR No. 02/2016 registered at P.S. Tandwa arising out of same incident? - Whether N.I. A. could conduct any further investigation in the matter when investigation in the P.S. Case No. 02/2016 having already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted on 10.03.2016 with regard to which cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 11.03.2016? - HELD THAT - There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that second FIR with regard to same offences is barred. But whether in the present case, FIR dated 16.02.2018 registered by NIA, can be said to be second FIR. Before answering the above question, we need to look into the scheme of the NIA Act, 2008 - NIA Act, 2008 was enacted to constitute an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. There are no lack of jurisdiction in NIA to carry on further investigation and submit a supplementary report. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the Union of India that NIA has concluded investigation and already a charge sheet has been submitted on 21.12.2018 vide first supplementary charge sheet. There are no lack of jurisdiction in the NIA to carry on further investigation in the facts of the present case. Whether the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi remanding the Appellant to judicial custody is in accordance with law? - Whether the power Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in the present case, where the cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.03.2016 or the Accused could have been remanded only Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure? - HELD THAT - The issue to be answered in the present case is as to whether for remanding the Accused (Appellant), Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure could have been resorted to by the Special Judge or remand could have been done only Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure This Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 167 and Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure in large number of cases. In the old code, there was a provision namely Section 344 which was akin to Section 309 of present Code - The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which Accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential. The special Judge could have only exercised power Under Section 309(2), hence, the remand order dated 25.06.2018 has to be treated as remand order Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure The special Judge being empowered to remand the Accused Under Section 309(2) in the facts of the present case, there is no illegality in the remand order dated 25.06.2018 when the Accused was remanded to the judicial custody. The High Court, thus, committed error in holding that the order of remand dated 25.06.2018 was in exercise of power Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the remand order dated 25.06.2018 was in exercise of power Under Section 309(2). Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether in a case where an Accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the Accused in custody? 2. Whether re-registration of F.I.R. No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second F.I.R. and is not permissible there being already a FIR No. 02/2016 registered at P.S. Tandwa arising out of same incident? 3. Whether N.I.A. could conduct any further investigation in the matter when investigation in the P.S. Case No. 02/2016 having already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted on 10.03.2016 with regard to which cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 11.03.2016? 4. Whether the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi remanding the Appellant to judicial custody is in accordance with law? 5. Whether the power Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in the present case, where the cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.03.2016 or the Accused could have been remanded only Under Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure.? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: The court examined whether bail granted earlier should be canceled when new offences are added. It noted divergent views among High Courts. Some judgments indicated that fresh bail is needed for newly added offences, while others suggested that the earlier bail should be canceled. The court concluded that new and serious offences require the Accused to surrender and apply for fresh bail. The investigating agency must seek an order from the court for arrest or custody under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the Accused can be arrested and committed to custody without necessarily canceling the earlier bail. Issue No. 2: The court analyzed whether re-registration of FIR No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI constituted a second FIR. It referred to the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008, and concluded that re-registration by NIA was procedural to initiate investigation and trial under the NIA Act. The court held that re-registration was not a second FIR, as it was necessary to give effect to the provisions of the NIA Act. Issue No. 3: Regarding whether NIA could conduct further investigation, the court noted that the initial charge sheet did not include offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which were added later. The court referred to Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows further investigation even after a charge sheet is filed. It concluded that NIA had the jurisdiction to conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary report. Issue No. 4 and 5: These issues were addressed together. The court examined whether the remand order dated 25.06.2018 was in accordance with law. It referred to Sections 167 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that Section 167 applies during the investigation period, while Section 309 applies after cognizance is taken. It held that since the Accused was in custody when produced in court, remand should have been under Section 309(2). The court upheld the remand order dated 25.06.2018, treating it as an order under Section 309(2). Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the legality of the remand order dated 25.06.2018, finding no merit in the appeals.
|
