Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for KARTAR SINGH VS State Of Punjab...
1994 0 Supreme(SC) 333 : The legal documents contain several key provisions and judicial observations supporting police custody and custodial interrogation under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). Specifically, Section 15(1) of TADA authorizes a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police to record a confession during pre-indictment interrogation. The court upheld the constitutionality of this provision, stating that the legislative intent to combat terrorism justified the special procedure, and emphasized that the confession must be recorded in a free atmosphere, in the accused''''s own language, and without compulsion. The court also laid down six guidelines to ensure fairness, including: (1) the confession must be recorded in the language spoken by the accused; (2) the accused must be produced before a Chief Metropolitan or Chief Judicial Magistrate without unreasonable delay; (3) the Magistrate must record any complaint of torture and order a medical examination if necessary; (4) no police officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (in metropolitan areas) or Deputy Superintendent of Police (elsewhere) may investigate offences under TADA; (5) if police custody is sought, the officer must file an affidavit explaining the reason and any delay; and (6) if the accused invokes the right to silence, the police officer must respect it. These guidelines, while not binding, were suggested to ensure that custodial interrogation remains fair and just, thereby supporting the legitimacy of police custody and interrogation under TADA. The court also noted that the recording of confession by a police officer is not excluded by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the accused may also be examined by a Magistrate under Section 164. The majority opinion held that such procedures are constitutionally permissible in exceptional circumstances involving terrorism, provided fundamental rights are not infringed. This constitutes judicial endorsement of police custody and custodial interrogation in the context of terrorism, subject to procedural safeguards.Checking relevance for Ratlavatchandi VS Government Of A. P. , Home Department, Hyderabad...
Checking relevance for Manik VS State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
2014 3 Supreme 285 : The legal documents establish that ''''custody'''', ''''detention'''', and ''''arrest'''' are sequentially cognate concepts, with custody not being synonymous with arrest. A person can be in custody without being formally arrested. Specifically, the documents cite Niranjan Singh vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, where Krishna Iyer, J. held that a person can be in custody when they surrender before a court and submit to its directions. This principle was reiterated in Deepak Mahajan (1994) 3 SCC 440, which confirms that surrender before a court constitutes custody under Section 439 CrPC. Furthermore, the documents affirm that custodial interrogation occurs when a person is deprived of freedom of action in any significant way, as defined in Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436, 1966), and that such interrogation requires adherence to constitutional safeguards like the Miranda warning. The documents also reference R. vs Whitfield (1969 CareswellOnt 138) and R. vs Suberu [2009] S.C.J.No.33, which clarify that detention occurs only when there is a significant deprivation of liberty. These precedents support the legal position that police custody and custodial interrogation are valid and legally recognized stages in criminal proceedings, particularly when a person is deprived of liberty in a substantial manner, even if not formally arrested.Checking relevance for D. K. Basu: Ashok K. Johari VS State Of W. B. : State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for State of Andhra Pradesh VS Prathipati Sarath...
Checking relevance for Smt. Mallamma w/o. Late ugrappa vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. Bytheprincipal Secretary, Civil Supplies department...
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12630 : The judgment in State v. Anil Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187] supports the necessity and legitimacy of police custody and custodial interrogation, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect with anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that effective interrogation of a suspected person is crucial for uncovering useful information and materials that may have been concealed, and that such interrogation would be undermined if the suspect is insulated by a pre-arrest bail order. The Court also rejected the argument that custodial interrogation is inherently prone to third-degree methods, stating that courts must presume responsible conduct by police officers and that such concerns can be raised by all accused, not just in custodial cases. This precedent directly supports the legal position in favor of police custody and custodial interrogation as a legitimate and necessary investigative tool.Checking relevance for Central Bureau of Investigation VS Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra...
2023 3 Supreme 575 : The judgment in the case before the High Court of Calcutta, as appealed by the CBI, establishes that the right of custodial interrogation is a vital right in favor of the investigating agency to unearth the truth. The court held that no accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by their conduct, particularly when they have purposely and successfully obstructed the investigation. The court emphasized that allowing an accused to evade full custodial interrogation—by limiting the CBI''''s ability to interrogate for the full seven-day police custody remand period—would amount to rewarding such obstructive conduct. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and denied default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., affirming that the investigating agency must be granted the full statutory period of police custody for interrogation to ensure a fair and effective investigation. This judgment serves as a precedent in favor of police custody and custodial interrogation, reinforcing the principle that the investigative process must not be undermined by the accused''''s conduct.Checking relevance for Teesta Atul Setalvad VS State of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Maddala Sakappa Murali vs State Of Andhra Pradesh...
2025 0 Supreme(AP) 973 : The court held that custodial interrogation is necessary in cases involving grave allegations, emphasizing that denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the investigation, thereby adversely affecting its integrity. The court further stated that the necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner is paramount to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations and to bring out all material information relating to the offence. This principle supports the police''''s right to seek and the court''''s authorization of custodial interrogation in serious cases, particularly where the nature of the accusations is grave and the investigation is at an initial stage.
