2011 (11) TMI 867 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether in every "formal arrest" there is "custody" as embodied in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Whether the detention of the accused beyond 24 hours from the time of formal arrest without production before a Magistrate is illegal.
3. Whether a Magistrate can pass an order authorizing the detention of the accused either in police custody or judicial custody after the initial 24-hour period.
4. Whether a subsequent valid remand order can cure the alleged illegal detention of the accused in police custody beyond 24 hours.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Formal Arrest and Custody:
The court examined whether a "formal arrest" in prison equates to "custody" as per Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. The court clarified that while every arrest involves custody, not every custody involves arrest. A formal arrest in prison does not bring the accused into the physical custody of the police; instead, the accused remains in judicial custody. This distinction is crucial because it affects the requirement to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours.

2. Detention Beyond 24 Hours:
The court addressed whether the detention of the accused beyond 24 hours from the time of formal arrest without production before a Magistrate is illegal. It was held that since formal arrest does not bring the accused into police custody, the production of the accused within 24 hours is not mandated. The court noted practical difficulties in producing the accused within 24 hours when formal arrest is made in prison, emphasizing that the accused remains in judicial custody and not police custody during this period.

3. Magistrate's Authority Post 24-Hour Period:
The court examined whether a Magistrate can authorize the detention of the accused either in police custody or judicial custody after the initial 24-hour period. It was held that a Magistrate can pass a valid remand order prospectively, even if the accused was in illegal detention for some time. The court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that an accused cannot seek liberty on the ground of non-compliance with Article 22(2) once remanded by a Magistrate.

4. Curing Illegal Detention:
The court considered whether a subsequent valid remand order can cure the alleged illegal detention of the accused in police custody beyond 24 hours. It was held that while past illegal detention cannot be cured, a Magistrate can still pass a valid remand order prospectively. The court distinguished the present case from Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that the latter involved a failure to produce the accused before a Magistrate at all, whereas in the present case, the accused was produced albeit later.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
1. Formal arrest in prison does not equate to police custody.
2. There is no legal requirement to produce the accused within 24 hours of formal arrest in prison.
3. A Magistrate can pass a valid remand order prospectively.
4. Past illegal detention does not invalidate a subsequent valid remand order.

The court set aside the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate and remitted the matter back for passing appropriate orders under Section 167(1) of the CrPC. The respondents were directed to surrender before the Magistrate, failing which non-bailable warrants would be issued.