1. This application under section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (under NDPS Act) Mandsaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted police remand of the present applicants Premsukh s/o Mohanlal and Madanlal s/o Devraj in Crime No.44/2013 under sections 8/15 and 26 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants assails the impugned order on the ground that if a person is arrested in crime and is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is entitled to grant police or judicial custody of the person for 15 days, but after the lapse of first 15 days, the police remand cannot be granted by the Magistrate.

3. To understand the real controversy in the present case, the brief relevant fact may be stated. The present applicants were arrested by police station - Nahargarh in Crime No.44/2013 under sections 8/15 and 26 of the NDPS Act. It transpires from the certified copy of the order sheet of the learned lower Court that on 19.12.2013, an application was filed before the learned Special Judge that the present applicants were under custody in Crime No.135/2012 of police station Jiran under sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. They were finally arrested by the police in the present crime, however, being in custody in another crime, their police custody could not be obtained, and therefore, they requested for issuance of production warrant. The learned Special Judge allowed the application and issued production warrant of the present applicants. The applicants could not be produced on 6.1.2014, which was the date fixed for their appearance before the Court. Finally, they were produced before the Court on 20.1.2014. On that date, however, they were sent back in police custody by preparing jail warrant by the Special Court and immediately after they were sent back to jail, an application was filed before the learned Special Judge by the Investigating Officer praying therein for judicial custody of the applicants. However, they were not produced before the Special Judge on 3.2.2014, 10.2.2014, 25.2.2014 and finally, they were produced before the Court on 11.3.2014, when the Special Judge passed the impugned order allowing police custody.

4. Before the learned Special Judge, the present applicants placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni reported in AIR 1992 SC 1768 and also on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devender Singh and another etc v. State of Haryana and others etc. reported in 2010 CrLJ 3849. However, the learned Special Judge found that the present applicants were under custody in different offences and therefore, the present Investigating Officer did not get an opportunity to investigate the case and therefore, he allowed the application of the Investigating Officer and granted police custody of the present applicants.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the present applicants after being formally arrested in the present case, remained in custody which may be considered as their judicial remand for more than 15 days and once initial 15 days have passed, then the Special Judge or the Magistrate is not entitled to grant police custody of the accused.

6. I have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). In this case, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court observes in para 11 that :

“....... In the occurrernce, it may so happen that the accused might have committed several offences and the police may arrest him in connection with one or two offences on the basis of the available information and obtain police custody. If during the investigation, his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is disclosed, that does not authorize the police to ask for police custody for a further p