9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Legality of order directing transfer from judicial custody to police custody under Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the order directing the transfer of the accused from judicial custody to police custody for investigation under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The Designated Court had issued the order within the permissible 60-day period as provided under the Act. The petitioner contended that the grounds for seeking police custody were vague and time had lapsed, rendering any discovery meaningless. Concerns were also raised regarding the safety of the accused in police custody. The court considered the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which allows for the transfer of custody within 15 days, extended to 60 days under the Act. It emphasized the necessity of sufficient grounds for such a change in custody. In this case, considering the nature of the offense and the stage of investigation, the court found that grounds for police custody existed. The court addressed the safety concerns by obtaining assurances from the Investigating Officer regarding the physical well-being of the accused and prohibiting illegal interrogation methods. Additionally, the counsel for the accused was granted the right to visit the place of detention twice a day and report any maltreatment to the District Medical Officer for immediate action. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, reinstated the Designated Court's order, and imposed conditions to safeguard the accused's well-being during the period of police custody. The accused was to be transferred to police custody for three days, after which he would be returned to judicial custody. The judgment upheld the legality of the order for transfer to police custody under the specified conditions.
|
