Devender Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2010 Cri LJ 3849

Advertisements

Spread the love

Devender Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2010 Cri LJ 3849

Case Name:	Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Equivalent Citation:	2010 Cri LJ 3849
Date of Judgement:	05^th May, 2010
Court:	Supreme Court of India
Case No:	S.P.L. (Crl.) Nos. 2967-2968 of 2010
Case Type:	Criminal
Appellants:	Devender Kumar & Anr.
Respondents:	State of Haryana & Ors.
Bench:	(2 Judge Bench) Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph
Referred:	The Indian Penal Code, 1860The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FACTS OF THE CASE:

These appeals stem from the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision and order in Crl. M. Nos. 28847 and 28849 of 2008, which approved the Station House Officer of Hodal Police Station’s request for a three day police detention of the accused, Devender Kumar.
It appears that an application for police remand made by an officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector was rejected by an order dated 8.10.2008, when the Appellant No. 1 Devender Kumar, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, on October 8, 2008, in connection with case FIR No, 333 dated September 18, 2008, registered at Hodal Police Station, District Faridabad under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
The stated application was turned down by Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on October 8, 2008, since it violated the requirements of Section 167 (1) Cr.P.C, which stated that only officers with the rank of Sub-Inspector or higher may request police demand.
As a result, the Appellant No. 1 was remanded into judicial custody and ordered to appear on October 22, 2008. However, after the situation was corrected, the S.H.O. Hodal, filed an application on October 9, 2008, seeking for the three-day police remand of the accused/appellant Devender Kumar.
It was stated there that an incarcerated interrogation of the accused was required in order to reclaim the dowry items.
On October 10, 2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the aforementioned application. By an additional ruling dated October 10, 2008, the learned Magistrate released Appellant No. 1 on bail.
In Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and 28849-M of 2008, Respondent No. 4 Kavita alias Shama asked the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to revoke the appellant’s bail by filling a petition.
Additionally, she requested that the decisions from October 8, 2008 and October 10, 2008, which denied the remand of Appellant No.1, be set aside.
Devender Kumar, the First appellant in this case, disclosed that dowry items had been given to him and that those items were lying in his house in Delhi, which could be identified and recovered.
In light of the aforementioned findings, the High Court made the decision to grant the Criminal Misc. Petitions and toss out the orders dated 08.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 by the contested order dated 19^th March, 2010.
Due to their dissatisfaction with the High Court’s ruling in Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and 28849-M of 2008 on March 19, 2010, the appellants filled this appeal.

ISSUES RAISED:

The main issues in this case are stated below:

Does the High Court’s decision to revoke the appellant’s bail violate any well-established rules governing bail cancellation?
After the learned Judicial Magistrate denied the initial motion for police remand, is a second application still maintainable?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

Mr. Luthra, the senior attorney for the appellant, argued that after a disclosure statement was provided, no further custodial interrogation as requested by the investigative agency was necessary.
He further argued that there was no claim that the appellants had abused their right to bail, interfered with the investigation, tampered with witness testimony, or threatened witnesses in an effort to stall the investigation.
Mr. Luthra also argued that a second application for police remand was not maintainable because the first application for police remand had been rejected when the appellants were first detained and brought before the learned Magistrate.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned attorney representing Respondent No. 4 in this case, Mr. P.R Agarwal, claimed that the High Court’s decision did not need to be changed because many dowry-related items that Appellants were acknowledged to have received had yet to be recovered and could only be done so through custodial interrogation.
The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Manjit Singh, who was advocating on behalf of the State of Haryana, shared the same opinion.

JUDGEMENT:

Two Supreme Court of India Judges – Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph – sat on a bench to hear the matter and render a decision. On May 05, 2010, the Court handed down the decision.

After carefully examining the arguments put forth on behalf of the respective parties in this case, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals. The Court also reinstated the learned Magistrate’s October 10, 2008 decision and revoked the High Court’s March 19, 2010, Judgement mandating revocation of bail and re-arrest.

On two issues that Mr. Luthra argued, the Apex Court rendered its decision. According to the Supreme, there is no proof that the appellants abused their right to bail. The Court further ruled that the High Court’s justification for rescinding the orders granting bail and ordering the arrest of the appellants – that the appellants had disclosed information and that their police custody was required to recover it – was insufficient to support the cancellation of the earlier bail.

Regarding the second argument made by Mr. Luthra, the Supreme Court determined that Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. permits the Magistrate to order the accused to be held in either judicial or police custody for a specific amount of time within the first 15 days of their arrest. However, after that time period has passed, the Magistrate is no longer able to order police remand.

Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and granted the appellant’s appeals in this matter.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant decision in this case that addresses laws governing police remand and the cancellation of an accused person’s bail.

The High Court’s ruling was overturned by the Apex Court, which ruled that there weren’t enough grounds for it to revoke the appellant’s prior release from the learned Magistrate. The decision in this case not only brought relief to the appellant but also made sure that justice and a fair trial would be carried out.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the clause in Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C that stated police remand would only be granted during the first 15 days following arrest and production before the Magistrate and not otherwise, though judicial remand could extend to 60 days from the date of arrest and, in special circumstances, to within 90 days. In the 1992 Anupam Kulkarni case, the Supreme Court ruled that this provision is “intended to protect the accused from the methods which may be adopted by some overzealous and unscrupulous police officer.”

However, the High Court’s ruling was contrary to the provision cited in Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court therefore played a major role in this case by reversing the High Court’s judgement and rendering a historic ruling respecting police remand.

REFERENCES:

written by Saheli Naha intern under legal vidhiya