IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Central Bureau of Investigation -Appellant
Rathin Dandapath & Ors-
Bench-Dipak Misra,Prafulla C. Pant- Respondent
Fact of the case
A common question of law is involved in these three appeals as to whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet.
- The instant case from which these appeals have arisen, relates to killing of nine persons and injuring a large number of villagers of Village Netai of District Paschim Medinipore in West Bengal. It is alleged that the respondents in the present appeals and other accused, on 07.01.2011, after forming an unlawful assembly in the rooftop of respondent No. 1, Rathin Dandapat, committed the crime. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at Police Station Lalgarh in respect of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 326, 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and also in respect of offences punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The investigation of the case was initially done by regular police, but later transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the State. Vide order dated 18.2.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Writ Petition Nos. 1170(W) of 2011, 1172(W) of 2011 and 1181(W) of 2011, the investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”), the appellant before us.
- 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 a 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 sheets.
- 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, on 9.8.2011, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Paschim Medinipore. The Court of Sessions on 10.12.2011 framed charge against accused 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. The last two accused, namely, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy were later declared juveniles and their cases were sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Paschim Medinipore. The present case, as against said two juveniles, is said to be lying stayed vide order dated 8.9.2014, passed by this Court in S.L.P. No. 5699 of 2014. In respect of other accused against whom charge was framed, trial further proceeded and ten Prosecution Witnesses were examined. However, their cross-examination was deferred at the instance of arrested accused persons, other than the juveniles.
- Out of eight proclaimed offenders, five, namely, Rathin Dandapat, Md. Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri and Tapan Dey, were arrested on 29.4.2014, whereafter on 30.4.2014 the CBI sought their remand in police custody. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram rejected the prayer of the CBI, aggrieved by which said investigating agency submitted Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2014) before the Calcutta High Court. Absconder-accused Chandi Karan was arrested on 9.5.2014 by CID of the State, which informed the CBI about his arrest and meanwhile vacation Magistrate remanded judicial custody of said accused up to 12.5.2014. The CBI on 12.5.2014 sought remand in police custody in respect of Chandi Karan, but the same was also rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, against which Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1641 of 2014) was filed before the High Court. As to the absconder-accused Anuj Pandey too, CID, West Bengal, on 7.5.2014 informed the CBI about his arrest from Chandrapura in Jharkhand, and he was produced on 8.5.2014 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram where CBI sought remand in police custody but the same was also refused. Aggrieved by said order dated 8.5.2014, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1640 of 2014) was filed before the High Court. 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.
Issues involved
The main issues involved in this are as follows
- Whether the refusal of remand of police Custody is legal?
- Whether the conditions provided in section 167(2)CrPC for remand for police custody are satisfied ?
Legal provisions
- Section 167(2) CrPC
- Section 173(8) CrPC
- Section 309(2) CrPC
Legal Reasoning
Section 167(2)
The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that
(a)the Magistrate may authorise 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 authorise 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 shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail. Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention.
Section 173(8) CrPC
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).
Section 309(2)
If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.
Judgement
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the orders passed by the Magistrate, declining the police remand, are set aside. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders on the applications made by the appellant before it relating to granting of police remand of the respondents in accordance with law.
All the three appeals stand allowed.
Conclusion
In this case the main question arises was that of the allowance of remand of accused to the police custody.here in this case the first class magistrate as well as the high court bench have declined the request of remand made by the Investigation team which under the Clause 2 of section 167 is illegal .so the decision made by the Supreme Court was right one because according to provisions mentioned under CrPC the Court can allow the accused to move to the police custody.
written by sherin moidu c intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments