Kumar & ANR Etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc.  INSC 352 (5
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.988-989 OF 2010 (@S.L.P.(Crl.)
Nos.2967-2968 of 2010) Devender Kumar & Anr. etc. .. Appellants State of Haryana
& Ors. etc. .. Respondents
Appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Punjab & Haryana
High Court on 19th March, 2010, in Crl.M. Nos.28847 and 28849 of 2008, allowing
the application filed by the Station 2 House Officer, Hodal Police Station,
praying for police remand of the accused, Devender Kumar, for three days.
appears that when the Appellant No.1, Devender Kumar, was produced before the
Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 8th October, 2008, in connection with case FIR
No.333 dated 18th September, 2008, registered at Hodal Police Station, District
Faridabad under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, an
application was made for police remand by an officer of the rank of Assistant
Sub-Inspector, which was rejected vide an order dated 8.10.2008, as the said
application was contrary to the provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which
provide that an application for police remand can be made only by an officer
not below the rank of Sub- Inspector. Accordingly, the Appellant No.1 was
remanded to judicial custody and was directed to be 3 produced on 22nd October,
2008. Subsequently, however, the position was rectified and as indicated
hereinabove, an application was made by the S.H.O., Hodal, on 9th October,
2008, praying for grant of police remand of the accused/appellant Devender
Kumar for a period of three days. It was mentioned therein that custodial
interrogation of the accused was necessary for recovery of the dowry articles.
The said application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10th
learned Magistrate granted bail to Appellant No.1 by another order dated 10th
October, 2008. The Respondent No.4, Kavita alias Shama, filed Criminal Misc.
No.28847-M and 28849-M of 2008 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying
for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants.
prayed for quashing of the orders dated 8.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 by which the
application for remand of Appellant No.1 had been rejected. By the impugned
order dated 19th March, 2010, the High 4 Court allowed the Criminal Misc.
Petitions and quashed the orders dated 8.10.2008 and 10.10.2008 upon holding
that Devender Kumar, the Appellant No.1 herein, had made a disclosure statement
that dowry articles had been given to him and those articles were lying in his
house at Delhi, which could be identified and recovered. Aggrieved by the order
dated 19.3.2010 passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and
28849-M of 2008, the appellants have filed this appeal.
Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate,
urged that the order of the High Court impugned in these proceedings, directing
cancellation of bail granted to the Appellants and further allowing the
application for police remand filed on behalf of the Investigating Authorities
and directing the arrest of the Appellants herein and committing them to police
custody, was not only contrary to the 5 established principles relating to
cancellation of bail, but also violated the provisions of Section 167(1)
Cr.P.C. Mr. Luthra contended that once a disclosure statement was made, there
was no further need for custodial interrogation as sought for by the
investigating agency. He also submitted that there was no allegation that the
Appellants had either misused the privilege of bail and had interfered with the
investigation or had resorted to tampering with the evidence of witnesses or
threatened them so as to disrupt the smooth process of investigation.
is no allegation either that the Appellants had made themselves unavailable to
the investigating agency after being released on bail.
urged that despite the above, the High Court allowed the prayer for police remand
simply upon observing that the Appellant No.1 made disclosures during
investigation that the dowry articles which 6 were given to him were lying in
his house at Delhi which could be identified and recovered. A further
contention was raised by Mr. Luthra that after an application for police remand
had been dismissed when the Appellants were initially arrested and produced
before the learned Magistrate, a second application for police remand was not
maintainable and that the order of the High Court cancelling the grant of bail
to the Appellants was also bad on such ground.
P.R. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.4-Complainant,
however, submitted that the order of the High Court did not require any
interference, since a large number of articles given by way of dowry and which
were admitted to have been received by the Appellants, were yet to be recovered
and such recovery could be made only under custodial interrogation. The same
view was expressed by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned 7 Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of Haryana.
7. As to
the second branch of Mr. Luthra's submissions that a second application for
police remand was not maintainable after the dismissal of the first, reference
was made to a decision of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation,
Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi vs. Anupam J.
[(1992) 3 SCC 141], wherein the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.c. were gone
into in some detail and the very question which is now before us was also
considered and it was held that within the first 15 days period of remand, the
Magistrate could direct police custody other than judicial custody, but if the
investigation was not completed within the first 15 days' period of remand, no
further police remand could be made. It was emphasized that police remand would
only be made during the first 15 days after arrest and 8 production before the
magistrate and not otherwise, although, judicial remand could extend to 60 days
from the date of arrest and in special cases, to within 90 days.
have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties and we are of the view that the order of the High Court requires
intervention on the two points argued by Mr. Luthra.
had been granted to the Appellants by the learned Magistrate, Palwal, on 10th
October, 2008, and as indicated hereinbefore, there is no allegation that the
same had been misused or that any attempt had been made after the Appellants
were granted bail to recover the articles alleged to have been given to the
Appellant No.1 at the time of marriage with the complainant. The reason given
by the High Court for cancellation of the orders granting bail and directing
the arrest of the 9 Appellants on the ground that disclosures have been made by
the Appellants and that their police custody was necessary for recovery of the
same, is, in our view, not sufficient for the purpose of cancellation of bail
regard to the second point which was urged by Mr. Luthra, the same was
considered in depth and was settled in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni's case
(supra) referred to hereinabove. What is clear is the fact that police remand
can only be made during the first period of remand after arrest and production
before the Magistrate, but not after the expiry of the said period. Of course,
we do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Luthra that the second
application for police remand is not maintainable even if made during the first
15 days period after arrest. The said point has also been considered and
decided in the above case.
the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate 10 may remand the accused either to
judicial custody or police custody for a given number of days, but once the
period of 15 days expires, the Magistrate cannot pass orders for police remand.
Having regard to the facts of the case, we allow these appeals and set aside
the impugned order directing cancellation of bail and re-arrest passed by the
High Court dated 19th March, 2010, and restore that of the learned Magistrate
passed on 10th October, 2008.
______________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)