9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the legality of the order for police remand, the cancellation of bail, and the interpretation of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). Police Remand Issue: The appeal arose from a judgment allowing the application for police remand of the accused, Devender Kumar, for three days. The initial application for remand was rejected due to the rank of the officer making the request. However, a subsequent application was made by the Station House Officer, Hodal, for the recovery of dowry articles. The High Court allowed the remand based on the disclosure statement made by Devender Kumar regarding the location of the articles. The Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary after a disclosure statement and that a second application for police remand was not maintainable after the initial dismissal. Bail Cancellation Issue: The High Court's order cancelling the bail granted to the appellants was challenged on the grounds that there was no misuse of bail, interference with the investigation, or tampering with evidence by the appellants. The High Court justified the bail cancellation based on the need for custodial interrogation to recover the dowry articles. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning and reinstated the bail granted by the Magistrate. Interpretation of Section 167 Cr.P.C: The Court referred to the case law to interpret Section 167 of the Cr.P.C, emphasizing that police remand can only be granted within the first 15 days after arrest and production before the Magistrate. After this period, no further police remand can be ordered. The Court clarified that within the initial 15 days, the Magistrate can order either judicial or police custody, but not beyond this timeframe. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order for bail cancellation and re-arrest, and restored the bail granted by the Magistrate.
|
