SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1216

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.D.Anand, J.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Zafar Ali
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33014 of 2007,
Decided On : MAY 28, 2007

IMPORTANT POINT
Police Remand-Whether accused can be given to the police after 15 days period is over? YES

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2)-Police Remand-Whether accused can be given to the police after 15 days period is over? YES-Held; The law cannot conceptualize a situation in which the Courts put a bloc on the investigation of a case, to such an extent that the accused can safely envision exoneration from liability. (Para 12)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2)-Accused apprehended with fake visa document-Disclosure statement regarding forged passports-Request for police custody for recovery declined-In revision session Judge directed to decide matter afresh-Thereafter judicial Magistrate observed that police remand could not be granted as the initial period of 15 days was over-Whether proper? NO-Held; Accused can be given to police custody even after initial 15 days are over particularly when it is obvious that in the absence of recovery the disclosure statement made by the accused would not be admissible. (Para 12)

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2)-Detention-Police remand-Whether accused can be given to the police after 15 days period is over? YES-Held; the ruling, CBI v. Anupam S. Kulkarni provides that the detention of an accused in police custody cannot exceed 15 days in the whole. It does not conceptualize a case in which there was a complete denial of police remand by the Magistracy. (Para 11)

       

Judgment

S. D. Anand, J.

1. The short question that has come up for adjudication presently before this Court is whether the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure indicate that the person of the accused cannot be at all given to the police after initial 15 days period is over or whether the period for which person of the accused can be handed over to the police cannot exceed 15 days in all.

2. Facts, having a relevant bearing on the controversy, are as under: on 19.4.2007, at about 12.15 a. m. , a secret information was received by the police that the accused is travelling by atari Express Train No.4001 upto Pakistan on a forged passport and that he is also carrying a number of forged passports which could be recovered. The secret informer further informed that the apprehension of the petitioner may give a breakthrough in the investigation of the Atari Train Bomb blast case. Thereupon, the police acted and apprehended the accused respondent zafar Ali at Railway Station Ambala cantt. His personal search led to the recovery of a Visa from wherein the name of the accused (Zafar Ali son of saif Ali, resident of Sankhani, Police station, Jahangirabad, District bulandshahar) was found to be entered as Chanda son of Makbool hasan, resident of 4431, Gali Sitara, kazi House, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. The passport he was carrying bore No. B1688679 which had been issued at delhi and which also bore his photograph. The accused also informed the raiding party that his mother Mst. Bano was also accompanying him, that she had gone ahead and that both the passports (that of the accused and his mother Mst. Bano) are with the latter only. The relevant information was furnished by GRP (Government Railway police), Ambala, to their counterpart at attari and that is how the apprehension of Mst. Bano wife of Saif ali came about. On interrogation (on 20.4.2007), the accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed 4/5 forged passports in an attached case at the house of a named friend of his. He offered to get the recovery thereof effected. Thereupon, the police of GRP Ambala presented the accused before the Judicial Magistrate who declined to commit the accused to police custody. Instead thereof, the accused was remanded to judicial custody upto 24.4.2007. That order of the judicial Magistrate was challenged by the State of Haryana in revision petition before the Court of Sessions at ambala. While allowing the revision petition, the learned Additional Sessions judge directed the matter to be put up before the Illaqa Magistrate "to reconsider the request of the prosecution for police remand after perusal of the police record and to decide the application for police remand afresh on merits. " While granting that order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed the fact of disclosure statement made by the accused and also observed that "it is a well known fact that recently, various blasts had occurred in the Attari Express resulting into various deaths and injuries. Under such circumstances, travelling of accused with the fake passport, particularly in train like Attari Express after the recent blast is a thing which has to be viewed very seriously. "

3. However, the fate of the prosecution plea was no different this time as the learned Judicial Magistrate, before whom the matter came up in compliance withthe orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge, ambala observed that the police remand of the petitioner could not be granted as the initial period of 15 days was over. Reliance, in support of the view, was placed upon central Bureau of Investigation, Special investigation Cell-1, Delhi V/s. Anupam Kulkarni.

4. The State of Haryana again went up in revision (Crl. R. No.35/7.5.2007 ). This time, the point of view of the State of haryana did not find favour with the Court of revision and the petition came to be declined on 10.5.2007. The learned Additional sessions Judge upheld the line of reasoning adopted by the l












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top