Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 852
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Bhavesh @ Lallo Chandrakant Patel - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). Bo. 13 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) NO. 7559 of 2019)
Decided On : 07-01-2020
Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, Adv. for the Appellant; Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. for the Respondent
Point of Law: ordinarily, the accused should not be taken in custody unless their bail is cancelled.
Headnote:
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Anticipatory Bail - Permitting police remand of Appellant herein for a period of four days for his interrogation in of, registered with Police Station, - Whether Judicial Magistrate accorded sufficient reasons while allowing application for police remand, especially given fact that Appellant was on anticipatory bail.
Finding Of the Court :
Court has observed that police remand of an accused cannot be granted for an undisclosed or flimsy reason, particularly when accused has been released on bail - Following excerpts are relevant to note - Appellant shall abide by all conditions imposed upon him in order granting anticipatory bail - He shall cooperate with investigation and shall appear before Judicial Magistrate/Investigation Officer whenever required. – Court case of a violation of any of conditions, it is open for State to move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Result : Appeal is Disposed
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodra permitting police remand of the Appellant herein for a period of four days for his interrogation in C.R. NO. III-328 of 2019, registered with Padra Police Station, Vadodara.
3. The records reveal that the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail to the Appellant on 12.07.2019. One of the terms in the bail order reads as follows:
"7. In case of Investigation Officer requires the remands of Applicant/Accused person for the matter of investigation proceedings, his right entitlement of remand is reserved and on seeking remand related application before Hon'ble Court, same is required to be decided by Hon'ble Court and this Trial Court shall not come under influence of this order. Rights of remand to the both parties are kept reserved."
4. In accordance with the same, the police filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate seeking remand of the Appellant for a period of seven days for the purpose of interrogation. By order dated 19.07.2019, this application was allowed and police remand of the Appellant was granted for four days. This order was confirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2019.
5. The question to be decided in this case is whether the Judicial Magistrate accorded sufficient reasons while allowing the application for police remand, especially given the fact that the Appellant was on anticipatory bail. In Satyajit Ballubhai Desai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2014) 14 SCC 434 , this Court has observed that the police remand of an accused cannot be granted for an undisclosed or flimsy reason, particularly when the accused has been released on bail. The following excerpts are relevant to note:
"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...
20. In fact, when the accused had been enlarged on bail by the High Court, it was all the more essential initially for the police authorities and thereafter by the Magistrate to disclose and assign convincing reasons why investigation could not proceed further without seeking police remand of the accused and in case police remand was sought on any ground of interference with the investigation in any manner alleging influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence in any manner, straightaway it could have been a case for cancellation of bail of the accused and the Magistrate could have directed the police authorities to approach the High Court seeking cancellation or any other appropriate direction.
21. What is sought to be emphasised is that the disclosure of reasons by the Magistrate allowing police remand especially in a matter when the accused has been enlarged on bail by the High Court is all the more essential and cannot be permitted in the absence of a valid and sufficiently weighty reason seeking such custody, as it clearly affects the liberty of an individual who has been enlarged on bail by a court of competent jurisdiction."
6. Similarly, in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332 , this Court has held that ordinarily, the accused should not be taken in custody unless their bail is cancelled.
7. In view of these decisions, and upon a perusal of the order of remand dated 19.07.2019, we find that c
