The main legal point established is that the Magistrate must ensure there are reasonable grounds and material justifying police remand of the accused, and proper reasoning is essential in orders refusing police custody.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner has filed both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.11.2019 passed in ECIR/05/DLZO-II/2019 by Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Judge’).

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Judge has not applied its mind while refusing the police custody for the purpose of custodial interrogation of the respondents and passed the order which is bereft of any sound reasoning.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the offence started way-back in 2008 and the offence of money laundering is complicated in nature requiring investigation of various aspects and the money trail. During the course of the investigation/interrogation, some of the proceeds of crime are found to be linked and siphoned off to foreign companies. The money trail which is found during investigation is required to be confronted and further investigated.

4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is required to unearth the conspiracy which has been hatched by the respondents for the last 9/10 years. Hence, in view of the voluminous record, documents and the nature of transactions in the present matters, the Judge ought to have granted police custody of the respondents to the petitioner for the purpose of custodial interrogation.

5. It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the matters involve public money and the accused/respondents are required to be confronted with the statements of other Directors, however, in case the police remand is not granted, the investigation would be hampered.

6. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the respondents could not be completed during the period of 9 days, when the accused/ respondents were in police custody, in view of voluminous record and documents as well as the statements which were required to be confronted to them and the time was not sufficient to confront all the materials collected and required to be confronted to them.

7. It has also been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the police custody of the respondents be granted till 28.11.2019.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner for further police remand of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing the respondents in the false and fabricated case and there is nothing on record in view of the existing facts and circumstances which may justify the police remand of the respondents.

9. In Crl. M.C. 6018/2019, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Sunil Godhwani submitted that a perusal of the successive remand applications demonstrates the fact that no new ground has been surfaced for the extension of police custody of the respondent and the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the Judge demonstrates substantial application of mind and it cannot be said that it lacks sound reasoning. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in view of the existing Delhi High Court Rules, Magistrate should discourage tendency of Police to take remand to extort confession and Magistrate must be careful not to facilitate this object by readily granting police remand. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the money trail purportedly to be investigated by the investigating agency is already in their knowledge and thus, further police custody is unwarranted.

10. To substantiate his case, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent relied upon certain judgments, such as Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025, T.N. Jayadesh vs. State of Kerala, 2015 SCC Online Del 9486, Manubhai Ratilal Patel through Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 475, Harsh Sawhney vs. Union Territory (Cha