TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drances and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime. Sometimes, it may be required even to maintain law and order in the locality. The investigating agency is required to bring to the notice of the Court the material collected against an arrested accused to persuade the Court to remand him into police custody for the purpose of further investigation and it is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds and that the material placed before him, as discussed hereinabove, justify the police remand of the accused - After satisfying himself regarding the adequacy of the grounds for the purpose of police detention or remand before passing the order of detention or remand, the Magistrate shall pass necessary orders only thereafter. The Magistrate authorising remand under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. can only examine the record to see whether there exists some material to justify the remand, however, the Magistrate cannot conduct a roving enquiry to test the sufficiency of material at this stage for the obvious reason that investigation would be at a nascent stage and the police are yet to file a report either under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent/accused - Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is required for the purpose of further investigation in the matter. The impugned orders dated 23.11.2019 are set aside and the respondents are remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement till 28.11.2019. The Jail Superintendent concerned is directed to handover the custody of the respondents to the Investigating Officer of the case for custodial interrogation - Petition allowed. - CRL.M.C. 6018/2019 and CRL.M.C. 6019/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitish Rana, SPP, Ms. Sanjana Rajput, Mr. Ali Khan and Mr. A.R. Aditya, Advs. along with Ms. Smriti Tripathi, Deputy Director and Mr. Rahul Verma, IO/AD/ED Respondent Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajat Katyal, Mr. Naunidh S. Arora, Mr. Ajay Tusheer and Mr. Karan Jain, Advs. Mr. Manu Sharma, Ms.Ridhima Mandhar, Mr.Kartik Khanna, and Mr.Vijay Singh, Advs. CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner for further police remand of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing the respondents in the false and fabricated case and there is nothing on record in view of the existing facts and circumstances which may justify the police remand of the respondents. 9. In Crl.M.C.6018/2019, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Sunil Godhwani submitted that a perusal of the successive remand applications demonstrates the fact that no new ground has been surfaced for the extension of police custody of the respondent and the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Judge demonstrates substantial application of mind and it cannot be said that it lacks sound reasoning. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in view of the existing Delhi High Court Rules, Magistrate should discourage tendency of Police to take remand to extort confession and Magistrate must be careful not to facilitate this object by readily granting police remand. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the money trail purportedly to be investigated by the investigating agency is already in their knowledge and thus, further police custody is unwarranted. 10. To su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the matter of Satyajit Ballubhai Desai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 14 SCC 434 : 9. Having considered and deliberated over the issue involved herein in the light of the legal position and existing facts of the case, we find substance in the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that the grant of order for police remand should be an exception and not a rule and for that the investigating agency is required to make out a strong case and must satisfy the learned Magistrate that without the police custody it would be impossible for the police authorities to undertake further investigation and only in that event police custody would be justified as the authorities specially at the magisterial level would do well to remind themselves that detention in police custody is generally disfavoured by law. The provisions of law lay down that such detention/police remand can be allowed only in special circumstances granted by a Magistrate for reasons judicially scrutinised and for such limited purposes only as the necessities of the case may require. The scheme of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is unambiguous in this regard and is intended to protec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.] 16. Application of mind is sine qua non at the stage of granting or refusing the police custody of a person to the investigating agency. 17. The foremost question which arises for consideration is whether the Judge has properly applied his mind regarding the material available on record and has given sufficient reasons in the impugned order or not while rejecting the police remand of the respondents. 18. The remand, admittedly, is a fundamental judicial function of a Magistrate; the Magistrate has to satisfy himself/herself that there are reasonable grounds and that the material placed before him justify the police remand of the accused. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons had been assigned while dismissing the applications of the petitioner. The Judge appears to have adopted a casual and a mechanical approach while dismissing the application of the petitioner without scrutinizing the specific contentions of the petitioner. 24. The case of the petitioner, in nut-shell, is that the Judge has not applied its mind while refusing the police custody for the purpose of custodial interrogation of the respondents and passed the order which is bereft of any sound reasoning. The custodial interrogation of the respondents could not be completed during the period of 9 days when the accused/respondents were in police custody in view of voluminous record and documents as well as the statements which were required to be confronted to them and the time was not sufficient to confront all the material collected and required to be confronted to them. The custodial interrogation of the respondents is required to unearth the conspiracy which has been hatched by the respondents for the last 9/10 years; the matter involves public money and further that the accused/respondents are required to be confronted with the statements of other Directors/public pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
