The court emphasized the importance of balancing the requirements of investigation with the necessity for custodial interrogation, and highlighted the need for a responsible approach to custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBI') vide the present writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution Of India, read with Section 482 of the of the Cr.P.C., 1973 assails the impugned order dated 23.6.2022 of the learned Vacation Judge, CBI-19, P.C. Act, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, whereby the prayer made by the CBI seeking four days. police custody remand of all the accused persons arrayed as the respondents No.1 to 5 to the present petition arrayed as accused in relation to RC No. 0032022A0037 Police Station CBI, ACB, New Delhi under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,- was declined.

2. The respondent No.1 Sh. S. Eswara Reddy, respondent No.2, Ms.Guljit Sethi @ Guljit Chaudhri, respondent No.3 Dinesh Dua and respondent No.4 L.Praveen Kumar were arrested on 20.6.2022 and the respondent no.5 Animesh Kumar was arrested on 21.6.2022 and the respondent Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 were produced before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue, on 21.6.2022 and on the prayer made by the CBI seeking five days. police custody remand, the said accused persons, i.e., respondent nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 were remanded to one day police custody remand by the Special Judge CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi. The respondent No.4, Praveen Kumar though arrested on 20.6.2022 having been arrested at Bengaluru was produced before the concerned Court of the ACMM, Bengaluru on 21.6.2022 and the transit remand was granted for production of the said accused before the Court of the Vacation Judge, CBI-19, RADC, New Delhi vide order dated 21.6.2022 with directions to produce the accused, i.e., respondent No.4 before the Special Judge CBI, PC Act, RADC, New Delhi on or before 23.6.2022 at 4 p.m.. Thus respondent No.4 Praveen Kumar was produced on 22.6.2022 before the Vacation Judge, CBI-19, PC Act, RADC, New Delhi.

3. The CBI also produced the remaining four accused, i.e., the respondent Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 from police custody on 22.6.2022 before the learned Vacation Judge, CBI-19, P.C.Act whilst praying for extension of four days. police custody remand of the respondent Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 and seeking four days police custody remand of the respondent No.4.

4. The respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 5 vide order dated 21.6.2022 of the Vacation Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08, RADC, New Delhi on the application filed by the CBI seeking police custody remand of the said four accused persons for five days were remanded to the custody of the Investigating Officer for one day i.e., till 22.6.2022 when they were directed to be produced before the Court prior to 5:00 PM on 22.6.2022. On 22.06.2022, it was observed by the learned Vacation Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08, RADC, New Delhi, that it was then already 5:45 PM and hearing submissions on the application of the CBI (which included seeking extension of police custody remand for four days of the accused no. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and seeking four days police custody remand of accused no. 4 apart from the application of the CBI seeking taking of voice samples of the accused Nos. 1 & 4 being pending) was not feasible then and the applications were adjourned for hearing for the date 23.6.2022 at 11:30 a.m. and all the accused persons were sent to judicial custody with directions to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar, to produce all the accused persons on 23.6.2022 at 11 :00 a.m. with further directions to keep each of the accused persons in different cells as the application of the CBI seeking police custody remand was pending.

5. Before adverting to the merits or demerits of the prayer made by the CBI and the submissions made on behalf of either side, it is essential to observe that in terms of Section 167 (2) and Proviso 'a' thereto, the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded in terms of Section 167 (1) of the Cr.P.C