TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion filed by the Station House Officer, Hodal Police Station, praying for police remand of the accused, Devender Kumar, for three days. 3. It appears that when the Appellant No. 1, Devender Kumar, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 8th October, 2008, in connection with case FIR No. 333 dated 18th September, 2008, registered at Hodal Police Station, District Faridabad under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC an application was made for police remand by an officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, which, was rejected vide an order dated 8.10.2008, as the said application was contrary to the provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which provide that an application for police remand can be made only by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and 28849-M of 2008, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, urged that the order of the High Court impugned in these proceedings, directing cancellation of bail granted to the Appellants and further allowing the application for police remand filed, on behalf of the Investigating Authorities and directing the arrest of the Appellants herein and committing them to police custody, was not only contrary to the established principles relating to cancellation of bail, but also violated the provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. Mr. Luthra contended that once a disclosure statement was made, there was no further need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be made only under custodial interrogation. The same view was expressed by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana. 7. As to the second branch of Mr. Luthra's submissions that a second application for police remand was not maintainable after the dismissal of the first, reference was made to a decision of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 wherein the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.c. were gone into in some detail and the very question which is now before us was also considered and it was held that within the first 15 days period of remand, the Magistrate could direct police custody other than ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case (supra) referred to hereinabove. What is clear is the fact that police remand can only be made during the first period of remand after arrest and production before the Magistrate, but not after the expiry of the said period. Of course, we do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Luthra that the second application for police remand is not maintainable even if made during the first 15 days period after arrest. The said point has also been considered and decided in the above case. Within the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate may remand the accused either to judicial custody or police custody for a given number of days, but once the period of 15 days expires, the Magistrate cannot pass orders for police remand. 11. Having regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
