Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Kar) 593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
State Of Karnataka By Kavoor Police Station, Represented By The State Public Prosecutor- Petitioner
Versus
Kalandar Shafi S/O Late Ismmail and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.13459 of 2024 C/W Writ Petition No.33526 of 2024 (GM – RES), Writ Petition No.33526 OF 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl.Spp, Sri P.P.Hegde, Sr.Advocate For Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri B.Lethif, Advocate, Sri Hashmath Pasha, Sr.Advocate For Sri Kariappa N.A., Advocate, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl.Spp, Sri B.Lethif, Advocate for Sri Hashmath Pasha, Sr.Advocate For Sri Kariappa, N.A., Advocate M.Nagaprasanna

The court ruled that for offences punishable up to ten years, police custody is limited to 15 days within the first 40 days of investigation, emphasizing the importance of timely investigations to protect personal liberty.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Section 187 - Police custody - The court rejected the prosecution's requisition for police custody of the accused, citing that the statutory period for police custody had lapsed as per Section 187 of the BNS Act, which allows custody for 15 days within the first 40 days of investigation for offences punishable up to ten years. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Interpretation of Statutory Provisions - The court emphasized that the phrase 'ten years or more' in Section 187(3) indicates a minimum threshold punishment of ten years, and thus, the investigation must be completed within 60 days for offences punishable up to ten years. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Rights of the Accused - The court reiterated that the interpretation of laws affecting personal liberty must favor the accused, ensuring that the right to bail is upheld if the investigation is not completed within the statutory time limits. (Paras 11, 17.10)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to your query are as follows:

The interpretation of Section 187 of the BNSS indicates that for offenses punishable up to ten years, the period for investigation is 60 days, with police custody limited to 15 days within the first 40 days of investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The phrase "ten years or more" in Section 187(3) signifies a minimum threshold punishment of ten years, which means the investigation period extends to 90 days for such offenses (!) (!) (!) (!) .
If the maximum punishment for the alleged offense is up to ten years (not exceeding ten years), the investigation must be completed within 60 days, and the police custody cannot extend beyond 15 days within the first 40 days of investigation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the punishment is a key factor in determining the investigation period and the permissible duration of police custody. For offenses punishable with up to ten years, the investigation period is 60 days, and police custody is accordingly restricted to 15 days within this timeframe (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the offense's maximum punishment is up to ten years, which restricts the investigation period to 60 days, with police custody limited to 15 days within the first 40 days. Since this period has lapsed, further police custody requests are not permissible under the law (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the statutory provisions should favor the rights of the accused, ensuring that the investigation and custody periods are strictly adhered to in accordance with the punishment thresholds specified by law (!) (!) (!) .
The court has rejected the petitions challenging the order denying further police custody, as the statutory period for investigation has been exceeded based on the nature of the offense and the interpretation of relevant provisions (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, for offenses punishable up to ten years, the investigation should be completed within 60 days, and police custody is limited to 15 days within the first 40 days. Since the maximum punishment in your case is up to ten years, these time limits are applicable, and further police custody beyond this period is not justified.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

Both these petitions call in question a solitary order dated 04-12-2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court) Mangalore, by which the Court rejects the requisition of the prosecution for grant of Police custody of the accused. Writ Petition No.33526 of 2024 is preferred by the complainant and Criminal Petition No.13459 of 2024 is preferred by the State.

2. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition No.33526 of 2024; Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for petitioner in Criminal Petition No.13459 of 2024 and for respondent No.1 in writ petition No.33526 of 2024; Sri B.Lethif, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4 in writ petition and respondents 1 and 3 in Criminal Petition and Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition and respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

On 06-10-2024 brother of the original complainant one B.M.Mumtaz Ali dies leading to registration of crime in Crime No.150 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 190, 308(2), 308(5), 351(2) and 352 of BNS. Pursuant to registration of crime accused Nos.1 and 5 are arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, after which, it appears, they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, during investigation on 10-10-2024 accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and were also remanded to judicial custody. On 12-10-2024 the Investigating Officer causes arrest of accused No.6 and produced him before the learned Magistrate who has remanded him to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate then on a requisition made by the Police grants police custody of accused Nos. 1 to 3. In the course of investigation, the prosecution is said to have come across certain voice samples of accused persons which were recorded and which were within the knowledge of the Court. The prosecution then files an application seeking police custody. This comes to be objected to by the accused. On the application and the objection, the concerned Court passes the impugned order by which police custody that is sought by the prosecution comes to be rejected, on the ground that the period of investigation in the case at hand was 60 days and the police custody available in terms of Section 187 of BNSS is within 40 days. Those 40 days having lapsed, there was no warrant to grant police custody is the reason rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application/requisition. Challenging these orders, the petitioners-State and the complainant - are before this Court in these petitions.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri P.P.Hegde, appearing for the complainant and the Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State would vehemently contend that the punishment imposable in the case at hand for an offence of abetment to suicide is ten years. Section 187 of BNSS, which is akin to Section 167 of the earlier regime Cr.P.C., would clearly permit investigation in an offence punishable with ten years or more to 90 days. The period for filing the charge sheet is 90 days and under Section 187 of the BNS if the period of investigation is 90 days, the police custody available in total for 15 days would be between day one to day 60. If it is interpreted that the offences are punishable with less than ten years, the police custody will be for 15 days between day one to day forty. Both the learned counsel would contend that Section 108 of BNS which deals with abetment to suicide is punishable up to ten years. Therefore, it should be construed that it is ten years or more and the police custody must be extended to a period from day one to day 60 and not restricted to day one to day forty.

5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would however add that many voice samples are procured during investigation which had to be put to the accus