Devender Kumar & Anr Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc

2008, allowing the application filed by the Station 2

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 498-A,

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 an officer not below the rank of Sub-

Inspector. Accordingly, the Appellant No.1 was

remanded to judicial custody and was directed to be 3

produced on 22nd October, 2008. Subsequently,

however, the position was rectified and as

indicated hereinabove, an application was made by

the S.H.O., Hodal, on 9th October, 2008, praying for

grant of police remand of the accused/appellant

Devender Kumar for a period of three days. It was

mentioned therein that custodial interrogation of

the accused was necessary for recovery of the dowry

articles. The said application was dismissed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate on 10th October, 2008.

The learned Magistrate granted bail to Appellant

No.1 by another order dated 10th October, 2008. The

Respondent No.4, Kavita alias Shama, filed Criminal

Misc. No.28847-M and 28849-M of 2008 in the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for

cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants.

She also prayed for quashing of the orders dated

8.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 by which the application

for remand of Appellant No.1 had been rejected. By

the impugned order dated 19th March, 2010, the High 4

Court allowed the Criminal Misc. Petitions and

quashed the orders dated 8.10.2008 and 10.10.2008

upon holding that Devender Kumar, the Appellant

No.1 herein, had made a disclosure statement that

dowry articles had been given to him and those

articles were lying in his house at Delhi, which

could be identified and recovered. Aggrieved by

the order dated 19.3.2010 passed 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 5

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 for custodial interrogation as sought for by

the investigating agency. He also submitted that

there was no allegation that the Appellants had

either misused the privilege of bail and had

interfered with the investigation or had resorted

to tampering with the evidence of witnesses or

threatened them so as to disrupt the smooth process

of investigation.

5. There is no allegation either that the

Appellants had made themselves unavailable to the

investigating agency after being released on bail.

It was urged that despite the above, the High Court

allowed the prayer for police remand simply upon

observing that the Appellant No.1 made disclosures

during investigation that the dowry articles which 6

were given to him were lying in his house at Delhi

which could be identified and recovered. A further

contention was raised by Mr. Luthra that after an

application for police remand had been dismissed

when the Appellants were initially arrested and

produced before the learned Magistrate, a second

application for police remand was not maintainable

and that the order of the High Court cancelling the

grant of bail to the Appellants was also bad on

such ground.

6. Mr. P.R. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing

for the Respondent No.4-Complainant, however,

submitted that the order of the High Court did not

require any interference, since a large number of

articles given by way of dowry and which were

admitted to have been received by the Appellants,

were yet to be recovered and such recovery could be

made only under custodial interrogation. The same

view was expressed by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned 7

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 vs. 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 judicial

custody, but if the investigation was not completed

within the first 15 days' period of remand, no

further police remand could be made. It was

emphasized that police remand would only be made

during the first 15 days after arrest and 8

production before the magistrate and not otherwise,

although, judicial remand could extend to 60 days

from the date of arrest and in special cases, to

within 90 days.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions

made on behalf of the respective parties and we are

of the view that the order of the High Court

requires intervention on the two points argued by

Mr. Luthra.

9. Bail had been granted to the Appellants by the

learned Magistrate, Palwal, on 10th October, 2008,

and as indicated hereinbefore, there is no

allegation that the same had been misused or that

any attempt had been made after the Appellants were

granted bail to recover the articles alleged to

have been given to the Appellant No.1 at the time

of marriage with the complainant. The reason given

by the High Court for cancellation of the orders

granting bail and directing the arrest of the 9

Appellants on the ground that disclosures have been

made by the Appellants and that their police

custody was necessary for recovery of the same, is,

in our view, not sufficient for the purpose of

cancellation of bail granted earlier.

10. With regard to the second point which was urged

by Mr. Luthra, the same was considered in depth and

was settled in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni's

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 10

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 to the facts of the case, we

allow these appeals and set aside the impugned

order directing cancellation of bail and re-arrest

passed by the High Court dated 19th March, 2010, and

restore that of the learned Magistrate passed on

10th October, 2008.

______________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

______________J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 05.05.2010