9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167. The case of DINESH DALMIA VERSUS C.B.I. [ 2007 (9) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT ] which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail Under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. In said case, the accused/absconder (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI police custody was granted on 14.2.2006 till 24.2.2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was granted till 8.3.2006. Said accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the accused sought statutory bail Under Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure as no charge sheet was filed against him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest - the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh Dalmia in upholdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namely Abhani Bhusan Singha, Subhendu Mondal, Aswani Chalak, Nabagopal Sanki, Pintu Roy, Gandib Ban Roy, Lob Duley, Banamali Duley, Niranjan Kotal, Rupchand Ahir, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy were arrested. On completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet dated 4.4.2011 against 21 accused, including the arrested ones and the absconders. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that further investigation of the case was kept open for the purposes of collection of further evidence and the arrest of the absconders. It was also mentioned that further collected evidence during investigation would be forwarded by filing supplementary charge sheet. 5. The Respondents, namely, Rathin Dandapat, Md. Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri, Tapan Dey (all Respondents in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2015), Chandi Karan (Respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015), Anuj Pandey (Respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2011), and one Kanai Dey, were declared proclaimed offenders. Meanwhile, the trial proceeded and, after providing necessary copies to the accused, as required Under Section 207 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. All the three Criminal Revisions were disposed of by the High Court by separate orders of the same date, i.e., 15.10.2014, against which these criminal appeals are filed through special leave. 7. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the relevant provisions of law. 8. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused in the custody of police, reads as under: Provided that,- (a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand. 11. In State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 438 , a three judge bench of this Court has laid down the law on the issue relating to grant of police custody of a person arrested during further investigation. In paragraph 11 of said case, this Court has held as follows: 11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to in the first proviso to the above Sub-section are different from detention in custody Under Section 167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates to the stage of investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since, however, even after cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to investigate into it further, which can be exercised only in accordance with Chapter XII, we see no reason whatsoever why the provisions of Section 167 thereof would not apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in course of such investigation. If Section 309(2) is to be interpreted--as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Ahmed Yasin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court. 13. In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our opinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh Dalmia (supra) in upholding refusal of remand in police custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood in custody after his arrest Under Section 309 Code of Criminal Procedure. We have already noted above the principle of law laid down by the three judge bench of this Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra) that police remand can be sought Under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of an accused arrested at the stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by the investigating agency. This Court has further clarified in said case that expression 'accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) Code of Criminal Procedure does not include the accused who is arrested on further investigation before supplementary charge sheet is filed. 14. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the refusal of police remand in the present case is against the settled principle of law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court, affirming the orders of the Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
