JUDGMENT (ORAL)

S.C. Dharmadhikari—Rule. The respondents waive service through their respective counsel. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This is a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for release of the petitioner’s son Rohit Jain from illegal and unlawful continued judicial custody after 23-11-2017 till date in CBI Case No.RC.3/E/2017 CBI EOW.

3. The few facts which are necessary for appreciating the challenge raised in this petition are that the petitioner’s son was arrested on 19-9-2017 and was produced before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 20-9-2017. The arrest was in relation to the above case and registered at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted CBI custody till 28-9-2017. Thereafter, the son was produced on 28-9-2017 as the CBI custody was extended till 28-9-2017. On second remand, the son was remanded to judicial custody till 12-10-2017 and which continued till 9-11-2017.

4. Thereafter, on 9-11-2017, a further remand application was moved and the judicial custody was granted till 23-11-2017.

5. That is how the maximum permissible custody of 60 days, as circumscribed by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was over.

6. The precise argument is that the petitioner’s son was remanded on 9-11-2017 for an offence punishable with maximum imprisonment extending to seven years. The Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.–(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that,–

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,–

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this subsection shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, b