CBI V/S ANUPAM J. KULKARNI

Advertisements

FACTS

The case involves the abduction of four diamond merchants and one existent, K, between September 14th and 15th, 1991. K was arrested on October 4th, 1991, and remanded to judicial custody until October 11th, 1991. A test identification cortege was arranged on October 10th, 1991, but K refused to cooperate. The probing officer sought police custody of K on October 11th, 1991, but K pretended to be indisposed and was confined to a hospital until October 21st, 1991. K was also appertained to the Cardiac Out- patient Department of the hospital. After being remanded to judicial custody until October 29th, 1991, K was transferred to jail.

ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER

The C.B.I. challenged the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and contended that the Magistrate erred in not granting police custody to K. They argued that the judgment in State (Delhi Admn.)v. Dharam Pal and others, on which the Magistrate relied, was incorrectly decided. The C.B.I. claimed that a  combined reading of Section 167( 2) and the  proviso therein makes it clear that indeed if the police  custody couldn’t be  attained during the  original 15- day period, remand to police  custody  latterly isn’t  forestalled.

ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT

The respondent or the accused argued that the police custody, if granted at each by the Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should only be during the period of the first 15 days from the date of product before the Magistrate. They contended that posterior custody, if any, should only be judicial custody and that the question of granting police custody after the expiry of the first 15 days didn’t arise.

JUDGEMENT 

The High Court, without deciding the question of whether the accused could be remanded to police custody, granted bail to K. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that detention in police custody is generally disfavoured by law and should only be allowed in special circumstances. It stated that the magistrate has the authority to order the detention of the accused in police custody after judicial scrutiny. Still, it clarified that after the expiry of the first 15- day period, there cannot be any further detention in police custody, indeed if fresh offenses are discovered. The court incompletely approved the judgment in State (Delhi Admn.)v. Dharam Pal and others and clarified the procedure for custody and remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

CONCLUSION

In the case after the expiry of the original 15- day period, a person cannot be remanded to police custody. The Supreme Court clarified that the detention in police custody is generally disfavoured by law and should only be allowed in special circumstances. The magistrate has the authority to order the detention of the accused in police custody during the first 15 days after judicial scrutiny. Still, after the expiry of the original 15- day period, further remand can only be in judicial custody. The court incompletely approved a former judgment and clarified the procedure for custody and remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

written by Shipra Vidyarthi intern under legal vidhiya

Admin