View That There Cannot Be Police Custody Beyond 15 Days From Date Of Arrest Should Be Reconsidered : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on Monday, opined that its decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, wherein it was observed that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest, requires to be re-considered.A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar granted permission to CBI to have 4 days’ police custody remand of an accused whose remand was originally granted by...
The Supreme Court, on Monday, opined that its decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, wherein it was observed that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest, requires to be re-considered.
A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar granted permission to CBI to have 4 days’ police custody remand of an accused whose remand was originally granted by a Special Court on 16.04.02021 for a period of 7 days. But, back then CBI could only interrogate for a period of two and half days considering that the accused was hospitalised in the interim and was eventually enlarged on interim bail. While passing the order, the Bench noted -
“No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/ investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process.”
Factual Background
On 27.11.2020, CBI registered an FIR against the officials of Eastern Coalfield Limited, CISF, railways among others for the commission of offence under Section 120B read with Section 409 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 16.04.2021, Vikas Mishra was arrested and remanded to CBI custody for seven days.
While he was in custody, Mishra had to be admitted in the hospital and could not be interrogated by the CBI. On 21.04.2021 he was enlarged on interim bail by the Special Court. Thereafter, his bail order was extended from time to time.
On 08.12.2021, the Special Court cancelled the interim bail on the ground of not meeting the bail conditions. Though it was mentioned in his order that Mishra was to appear before the Special Court, he did not do so. He was arrested again on 11.12.2021 and was remanded to judicial custody. While in custody he was admitted to the hospital from 12.12.2021 to 08.04.2022 and then again from 07.05.2022 to 08.09.2022. Subsequently, Mishra filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet/report within the period of 90 days from the date of arrest i.e. 11.12.2021. It is pertinent to note that the chargesheet was filed on 19.07.2022. The Special Court rejected the application. The order of the Special Court came to be challenged before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court allowed the application and he was directed to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, CBI approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the High Court. On 27.02.2023, the Apex Court issued notice on the prayer of the Investigating Agency to have the custodial interrogation of the accused.
Submissions
ASG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the CBI submitted that CBI got the police remand from 16.04.2021 till 22.04.2021. However, in the meanwhile, Mishra got admitted in the hospital and eventually got interim bail. Thus, the police custody remand that was granted on 16.04.2021 could not be exercised by the CBI. She requested that the CBI be given police custody remand of Mishra for the remaining period of seven days.
Senior Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kishal Kaul appearing for Mishra argued that no police custody can be granted beyond the first 15 days from the date of arrest. He emhapsised that there is no substance in the argument of the CBI that on 18.04.2021 Mishra got himself admitted to the hospital to evade his custody. Mr. Kaul submitted that from 08.04.2022 to 18.04.2022 when Kishra was remanded to police custody in another case he was extensively interrogated in the present case as well. Moreover, while he was on interim bail, he was interrogated by the CBI.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
The Court noted that when one is on bail/interim bail, there cannot be any police custody and therefore in the present case, the CBI could not interrogate Mishra for the full seven days of remand granted by the Special Court. It took note of the observations made by the Special Court while cancelling Mishra’s interim bail including the remark, “For the sake of precise investigation coercive participation of the accused person by way of judicial detention now appears to be imminent and indispensable.”
Considering the observations of the Special Court pertaining to the misuse of liberty and non cooperation with the CBI, the Apex Court was of the opinion that its decision in Anupam J. Kulkarni, wherein it was observed that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest, requires to be re-considered.
Taking into consideration that the CBI could interrogate the respondent-accused only for a period of two and half days during the period of police remand granted as per order dated 16.04.2021 and therefore could not exercise the right of interrogation for the full period of seven days of police custody remand, the Court permitted the CBI to have the police custody remand of the respondent for a period of four days.
Also Read - Explainer : Judicial Custody And Police Custody
Case details
CBI v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra| 2023 LiveLaw SC 283 | Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2023| 10th April, 2023| Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 167(2)- It is true that in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 141, this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest. In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration- Para 7, 7.1
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/ investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process -Para 8