The main legal point established in the judgment is that police custody can be ordered for a maximum of fifteen days, and the High Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to order remand of the accused to police custody.

Headnote:
Custody - Police Custody - Article 22(2) of the Constitution, S. 167 and S. 309 of the Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the scope and extent of the power to order police custody, the constitutional mandate for detention of an accused in custody, and the legislative history of amendments in the Code. The court emphasized that police custody can be ordered for a maximum of fifteen days and that the High Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to order remand of the accused to police custody.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a murder where the investigation was protracted due to the accused's absconding. The prosecution sought police custody for further investigation, while the accused opposed, willing to cooperate but not to be handed over to police custody.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the accused to make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer for fifteen days, emphasizing the need for smooth and efficient investigation while ensuring the accused's constitutional protection.
Issues: Scope and extent of the power to order police custody, constitutional mandate for detention of an accused in custody, and the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to order remand of the accused to police custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that police custody can be ordered for a maximum of fifteen days, and the High Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to order remand of the accused to police custody.
Final Decision: The court directed the accused to make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer for fifteen days, ensuring the accused's constitutional protection while facilitating smooth and efficient investigation.

Judgment :-

The Court is no clog on investigation and prosecution is no lever for humiliation. Freedom of the individual is no licence to commit crime; personal liberty thus can have no conflict with public interest. The Court protects both interests and strikes a balance when there is clash. I repeat these - I stated the same in earlier proceedings - for, these statements have greater significance in the present controversy.

2. In the early hours on the 9th October, 1981, in the heart of this city, a shot rang in Majeendran's house. The bullet pierced his body. He was fatally injured. On the way to the hospital he died. About three years have elapsed : the investigation is still not over ! The police cannot be blamed, so says the Prosecutor. The influence and the ingenuity of the accused have protracted the investigation and the alleged main culprit, the 1st accused was absconding all these years. His whereabouts were not known and the police did not have any clue either. On 4-7-1984, he suddenly appears and surrenders before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This event, of considerable significance for the investigation and possibly giving a twist to the further process of interrogation has given rise to this petition.

3. The second accused, Sadanandan, who is alleged to be influential and instrumental in this murder was arrested on 26-10-1981. He was produced before a Magistrate and remanded to police custody from 28-10-1981 till 7-11-1981 in the first instance and thereafter till 16-11-1981. Later he was in judicial custody till 21-12-1981 when he was released on bail on certain conditions. He is thus in the custody of the Court. It is sufficient if it is noted that he has not violated any conditions of his bail to warrant the cancellation of the bail.

4. The dramatic appearance of the first accused on 4-7-1984 has, it is said, taken the prosecution to fresh avenues of investigation, and the present application is to hand over the second accused, Sadanandan, to police custody for further investigation. The application, noted for its brevity as the occasion demands, sufficiently clear for the purpose on hand, reads thus :-

"The respondent herein was released on bail by the Court of Session, Ernakulam. In Cri.M.C. 801/81 the order of Bail was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court subject to certain conditions. The respondent has not been adhering to the conditions.

The co-accused of the respondent surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 4-7-1984 and the Police have been given custody of the said accused Rajan since 7-7-1984. Incidentally on the morning of 4-7-1984. the counsel for the respondent in Cri.M.P. 335/84 Sessions Court, Alleppey, submitted that Rajan would be surrendering before a Magistrate at Ernakulam on that day.

Since the surrender of Rajan, certain very important items of information have come to the notice of the Investigating Team. Such information has far-reaching effects, as far as the crime under investigation is concerned. A fuller disclosure of such information is not made at this stage, lest it may defeat an effective investigation. The weapon used also remains hidden. In the interests of justice, it is highly essential that the respondent is given in Police custody, without interrogating him and without having him in Police custody, a proper investigation and a fair trial will be impossible. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct, that the custody of the respondent herein may be made over to the Police for future investigation for a reasonable time, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury."

5. Naturally, the counsel for the second accused, vehemently opposes and contends that there is no jurisdiction for this Court to hand over this accused to police custody and assuming there is jurisdiction, the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the prosecution. He submits that he is prepared to co-operate with the prosecution, he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document