Important Point—Court should be circumspect and very slow in staying operation of order of remand on mere asking by accused.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an accused, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25th March 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat, granting remand of the petitioner in connection with the Special Case No. 11 of 2014 arising from CR-I No. 37 of 2013 registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat city, for the offence punishable under Sections 213, 214, 217, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1)(g) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under :

"The petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR being CR-I No. 37 of 2013 registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat city, for the offence enumerated above, on 15th September 2014. On 16th September 2014, he was produced before the learned Special Judge along with the production report, and on the very same day, an application seeking police remand was also filed."

3. The petitioner raised objections as regards the legality and validity of his production before the learned Special Judge. The objections raised by the petitioner herein as regards his production were considered by the learned Special Judge and the same came to be overruled. On the very same day i.e. on 16th September 2014, he was remanded to the judicial custody. The matter was carried further before this Court. The challenge of the petitioner so far as his production before the learned Special Judge was concerned, failed even before this Court.

4. It appears that the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking police remand on 16th September 2014 was taken up for hearing on 10th March 2015, and vide order dated 25th March 2015, the petitioner was ordered to be handed over from judicial custody to police custody for a period of 4 days i.e. between 26th March 2015 and 30th March 2015.

5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the same with this application.

6. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. C.B. Gupta, the learned advocate for the petitioner-accused, vehemently submitted that the Court below committed a serious error in passing the order of police remand after a period of 6 months and 9 days from the date the accused was remanded to the judicial custody.

7. Mr. Thakkar submitted that although the application seeking police remand was filed by the Investigating Officer on 16th September 2014 i.e. the day on which he was produced for the first time before the learned Special Judge, yet for the reasons explained by the Investigating Officer in his affidavit-in-reply, the same could not be taken up immediately for hearing and, therefore, ultimately, the application was heard on 10th March 2015 and the impugned order came to be passed on 25th March 2015. According to Mr. Thakkar, the petitioner could have been remanded to the police custody only during the first fifteen days after the date of arrest.

8. Mr. Thakkar submitted that the issue involved in this application is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J.Kulkarni, AIR 1992 SC 1768. Mr. Thakkar, relying on the said decision, submitted that the custody after the expiry of the first fifteen days can only be judicial custody. During the rest of the period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the police custody, if found necessary, can be ordered only during the first fifteen days.

9. Mr. Thakkar pointed out that charge-sheet was also filed way back on 4th November 2014, and once the Court takes cognizance on filing of the charge-sheet, the stage of Section 167 of the Code would come to an end and, thereafter, the custody would be governed under the provisions of Section 309 of the Code.

10. Mr. Thakkar poi