Point of Law: Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours - No power to extend period prescribed in Section 167 for completing investigation on any grounds, even in name of COVID-19 pandemic - Police cannot get custody of accused after expiry of 15 days.

ORDER :

The only question that arises for consideration in this petition filed by the State of Kerala, represented by the investigating officer in Crime No.164/2021 of Nedumudi Police Station, is whether the petitioner herein is entitled to police custody of the accused in the aforesaid Crime after the expiry of the first 15 days of remand on the ground that the application for police custody though filed in time, was not allowed because of the quarantine of the accused following their getting infected with COVID-19 virus during judicial custody. The crime is registered for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The investigation was transferred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambalappuzha.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the petition is thus:

Accused 1 to 4 in the aforesaid Crime were arrested on 13.04.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day by the jurisdictional court. The next day was a holiday for Vishu and on 15.04.2021, the investigating officer had to appear before the District & Sessions Court, Kozhikode in connection with giving evidence in S.C.No.121/2020. On 16.04.2021, the investigating officer submitted Annexure B application (Crl.M.P.No.913/2021) before the jurisdictional court for custody of the accused. The court issued a production warrant to the Superintendent of the Jail to produce the accused on 20.04.2021. However, on that day the jail authorities reported, through video conferencing, that accused 1 and 4 were infected with the COVID-19 virus and the rest of the accused being primary contacts were all quarantined. Based on the submission, the custody application was adjourned to 27.04.2021. On the said day, the jail authorities filed Annexure C explanation to the Sessions Court stating that the accused continue to remain in quarantine at Alappuzha CFLTC and hence could not be produced. The custody application was thus adjourned to 03.05.2021, on which date accused 1 and 4 were produced through video conferencing. Accused 2 and 3 were not produced since they were still in quarantine. The custody application thereafter came up for consideration before the Vacation Court and got adjourned to 10.05.2021, on which date there was a State-wide lockdown due to the pandemic, resulting in the application getting adjourned again to 10.06.2021. The investigating officer filed an Annexure D petition to advance the application for custody to 28.05.2021. On 25.05.2021 the investigating officer also filed another petition as Annexure E stating that he is ready to interrogate the accused in custody for three days by complying with COVID-19 protocol and by using the PPE kit. The Sessions Court advanced the case to 03.06.2021 and after the hearing, passed a common order at Annexure F dated 03.06.2021 dismissing the prayer seeking custody for interrogating the accused.

3. It is submitted that considering the peculiar circumstances caused by the pandemic, the Sessions Court ought to have granted custody of the accused to the investigating officer. Because of the dismissal of that application, the accused could not be subjected to custodial interrogation in a very heinous and grave crime. The weapons used for committing the murder are yet to be recovered. The investigating officer has complied with all the legal formalities to obtain custody and filed an application on time. The application was rejected solely on the ground that the Court is not empowered to grant police custody beyond the initial period of 15 days. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking interference and prays that the custody of the accused may be granted to the investigating officer.

4. Heard the Director-General of Prosecution Senior Counsel Sri.T.A.Shaji appearing for the State and Sri.Priyadarshan Thambi, the learned Counsel for the accused.

5. It is submitted that Section 167(2)(a) of the Cr.P.C. do