2004 (8) TMI 773 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of remanding accused to police custody after the initial 15-day period.
2. Justification of the learned Magistrate's rejection of the investigating officer's prayer for further police custody.
3. Conduct of CID officers in refusing to accept the release order and alleged wrongful confinement of the accused.
4. Validity of the evidence provided by a private detective agency.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Remanding Accused to Police Custody After Initial 15 Days:
The main point addressed by the court was whether the accused, who were initially remanded to police custody, could be further remanded to police custody after the expiry of the initial 15-day period as prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly the cases of CBI Special Investigation Cell-I v. Anupam J. Kulkarni and Budh Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that the custody after the first 15 days can only be judicial custody. The court concluded that the words "otherwise than in the custody of the police beyond the period of fifteen days" make it clear that police custody cannot be extended beyond the initial 15 days.

2. Justification of the Learned Magistrate's Rejection of Further Police Custody:
The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for further police custody on the grounds that the initial period of 15 days had expired. The court upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the protection of the accused from potential overzealous methods by the police. The court noted that the accused had already been interrogated multiple times by both CID and CBI without any new substantial evidence emerging from such interrogations.

3. Conduct of CID Officers in Refusing to Accept Release Order:
The court addressed the issue of CID officers refusing to accept the release orders issued by the learned Session Judge, which resulted in the wrongful confinement of the accused for three additional days. The court highlighted the learned Session Judge's observation that such conduct was a direct interference in judicial functioning and highly contemptuous. The court refrained from making further observations on this matter, as it was already under the consideration of the learned Session Judge, who was directed to take appropriate steps.

4. Validity of Evidence Provided by Private Detective Agency:
The court scrutinized the evidence provided by a private detective agency, which included a photograph of a nighty allegedly belonging to the missing girl. This photograph was presented to the investigating officer after a lapse of nine years. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Meghalaya, which held that investigations by private agencies are not recognized under the law, and any evidence collected by such agencies cannot be presented in a trial. Consequently, the court found the reliance on the private detective agency's evidence to be unjustified.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revisional application, affirming the learned Magistrate's order dated 3.8.2004, which rejected the prayer for further police custody of the accused. The court emphasized that detention in police custody is generally disfavored and should only be allowed in special circumstances. The court also highlighted the improper conduct of the CID officers and the inadmissibility of evidence from private detective agencies.