Police custody can only be ordered during the first period of fifteen days from the date of arrest or surrender of the accused, and after that, the accused should be kept in judicial custody or any other custody as ordered by the Magistrate.

V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE State filed Crl. M. P. No. 518 of 1995 in Crime No. 24 of 1995 of Yadiki Police Station, to hand-over the respondents to the police custody for a period of ten days, for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Magistrate, Tadipatri, dismissed the petition by order dated 21-4-1995, which is now challenged by the State.

( 2 ) THE averments stated by the petitioner are as follows : Crime No. 24 of 1995 has been registered in Yadiki Police Station with regard to land maid blast mine on 26-3-1995 in which nine persons were killed while travelling in a jeep. There were long standing bitter factions between the members of S. Narapa Reddy, one of the deceased persons and another group. Some members of either group have been murdered by the opposite group. Due to the above murderous feuds in the village, it is alleged that the attack was perpetrated by using high powered explosive. The respondents who are some of the accused in the case have directly surrendered before the Court, giving the police no opportunity to interrogate them. The application has been filed in the above circumstances. The petition was seriously contested by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit stating that suspecting danger to their lives they surrendered before the Court and if they were hand over back to the police, the police would torture them and beat them to death. The offence being not property offence where the question of seizure of property and recovery of the same at the instance of the accused might arise, their custody to police is not necessary. Considering the rival contentions and following the decision reported in C. B. I. , Spl. Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulakarni, 1992 SCC (Cri) 554 : (1992 Cri LJ 2768), and the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Yelamanchili Mahesh Babu v. State of A. P. , 1994 Cri LJ 77 (AP), the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that for the purpose of mere interrogation to extract the information from the respondents to the source of explosives used in the land mine blast, it was not necessary to hand-over them to the police custody. It could be done even before the Superintendent of Sub-Jail where they were detained, when there was no whisper in the petition with regard to the recovery of any material objects from the respondents. It also held that in view of the expiry of the first fifteen days of judicial remand, police custody could not be permitted in view of the decision in C. B. I. , Spl. Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulakarni, 1992 SCC (Cri) 554 : (1992 Cri LJ 2768 ). However, the learned Magistrate accorded permission to the petitioner for interrogation of the accused in the presence of the Superintendent of the Sub-Jail.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the police is entitled to for the custody of the accused in the case at least for a period of fifteen days under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code ) and their custody is necessary for interrogation to unearth the conspiracy behind the attack and also to trace the source from which the respondents have obtained the high powered explosives used in a landmine blast, the use of such high powered explosives being uncommon in those parts and to know the hide-outs of the absconding accused and also for recovery of weapons used in the crime. The counsel for the respondents reiterated his contentions raised before the lower Court that anticipating torture and danger to their lives they had surrendered before the Court and that there was no necessity for police custody in the light of the averments made in the petition.

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in C. B. I. Spl. Investigating Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulakarni, 1992 SCC (Cri) 554 : (1992 Crl LJ 2768), has considered the question in all its legal aspects whether a person arrested and produced before the Magistrate as required under Section 167 (1) of the Code, c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document