The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a proper affidavit adhering to the provisions of Rule 76 of the Tamil Nadu Criminal Rules of Practice to justify custodial interrogation.

R. Mala, J.

1. This petition is filed against the order dated 27.1.2015 passed by the learned principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (VIII-Additional City Civil Court), Chennai made in Crl.M.P. No. 454 of 2015. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) Based on a source information the petitioner herein after conducting preliminary enquiry registered F.I.R. under Section 120Br/w 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against three persons viz., A-1 Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, A-2 Mr. K. Brahmadathan and A-3 Mr. M.P. Velusamy.

(b) the main allegation levelled against the accused persons is that A1 while he was functioning as Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology, during the period from 2004 to 2007 by abusing his official position and in collusion with the officials of BSNL, Chennai viz., Mr. K. Brahmadathan and Mr. M.P. Velusamy and other unknown officials and in furtherance of above conspiracy and with dishonest intention, got installed more then 300 telephone connections with ISDN-PRA and ISDN-BRA, Lease Circuit facilities etc., in his residence in the name of the accused Govt. servants to show these connections illegally under 'service category' thereby no payment was made for the installation and rentals.

(c) Further, by not generating any user bills during the period, misappropriated huge amount which was to be paid to the Government thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 1,20,87,769/- and the corresponding gain to himself and others. However, in the said F.I.R. the names of the respondents herein have not been mentioned as accused persons.

(d) After the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioner after obtaining search warrants dated 07.08.2013, conducted searches in the residential places of A2 and A3 and seized certain documents which were placed before the court on 30.08.2013 and taken back for conducting further investigation. While so on 21.01.2015 at 17.30 hours, the petitioner arrested the respondents herein and produced them before the Trial court on 22.01.2015 at 02.00 P.M. At the time of producing the respondents/accused, the petitioner filed a memo for arraigning the respondents herein as A-4 to A-6 along with a petition seeking police custody. However, the Trial Court passed an order of remand dated 22.01.2015 remanding A-4 to A-6 to judicial custody until 04.02.2015.

(e) Thereafter, the Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by either sides dismissed the plea of the petitioner seeking police custody of the respondents herein holding that the custody of a person to the police cannot be given in a mechanical manner and that the petitioner is not entitled to seek custody of a person for conducting roving enquiry.

2. Challenging the impugned order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 454 of 2015 dated 27.01.2015 rejecting the application filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking police custody the present Criminal Original Petition has been preferred.

The learned Special Public Prosecution (CBI Cases) would submit that the respondents herein who were arrayed as Accused 4 to 6 were arrested on 21.01.2015 in connection with the F.I.R. registered under Section 120B r/w 409, 420 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(C) and 13(1)(d) of prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The application filed by the petitioner/investigation Agency before the Trial Court seeking custodial interrogation of the respondents were rejected and against the same, the present Criminal Original petition is preferred.

3. The Trial Court had dismissed the application by stating that the petitioner/CBI had not given any particulars and the reason as to why the police custody is necessary. Furthermore, is was stated that the petitioner have already undergone interrogation by the petitioner/CBI on several days and since the respondents were only in the judicial custody. If any further interrogation is necessary, the petitioner can very well obtain a