IMPORTANT POINT
Second application filed by NIA seeking police custody beyond 30 days of remand of accused is maintainable.

JUDGMENT

K. Lakshman, J.—Heard Sri Hussain Aamir, learned counsel, representing Sri T.Rahul, learned counsel for appellant and Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for National Investigation Agency (NIA).

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1204 of 2023 by learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Designated Court) arising out of RC-03/2022/NIA/HYD, the appellant/A.31 preferred the present appeal.

Facts:-

3. The appellant herein is A.31 in the aforesaid crime. Investigation was entrusted to NIA on 26.03.2022. The Investigating Officer has arrested the appellant/A.31 on 13.06.2023 and he was sent to judicial custody on 14.06.2023.

4. The Investigating Officer had filed an application vide Crl.M.P.No.799 of 2023 seeking police custody of the appellant herein for a period of seven (7) days. Vide order dated 04.07.2023, learned Designated Court allowed the said application and police custody of the appellant/A.31 was given for a period of 5 days from 06.07.2023 to 10.07.2023.The said application was filed within thirty (30) days from the date of arrest of the appellant and also remand.

5. The Investigating Officer in the said crime had filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.1204 of 2023 on 01.09.2023 seeking custody of the appellant for a further period of five (5) days on the ground that the appellant/A.31 was thoroughly interrogated during the police custody wherein he was confronted with his banking transactions with other associates and Popular Front of India (PFI) and his links with other accused persons in the case. However, the accused could not give satisfactory reply towards the same and investigation in the said case is under progress. During the investigation, some new evidence has come forth against the accused which needs to be confronted with the accused to find out his role in commission of offence and to identify the other suspects involved in the case which cannot be otherwise done without one-to-one interrogation of the accused person.

6. The said application was opposed by the appellant/A.31 contending that the Investigating Agency cannot file second application seeking police custody beyond thirty (30) days. The Investigating Agency having contended that they have thoroughly interrogated the appellant during police custody, cannot file second application on the ground that some new evidence has come forth against him which needs to be confronted with him to find out his role in commission of the offence and to identify the suspects involved in the case. The reasons mentioned by the Investigating Agency are not satisfactory. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Vide impugned order dated 22.09.2023, learned Designated Court allowed the said application and granted five (5) days police custody of appellant from 10.00 A.M. of 25.09.2023 till 4.30 P.M. of 29.09.2023 on certain conditions. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent/Investigating Agency cannot file second application beyond thirty (30) days and that too, without mentioning satisfactory reasons. Without considering the said aspects, the Designated Court allowed the said application erroneously. They have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 382 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in National Investigation Agency vs. Owais Ahmad Dar, Crl.M.C.3493/2021 and Crl.M.A.20845 of 2021(Stay).

9. Whereas, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for NIA would contend that second application filed by Investigating Agency seeking police custody beyond thirty (30) days is maintainable. The Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned the reasons for custody of the ap