Right To Remain Silent Is A Fundamental Right, Investigating Agency Can't Seek Extension Of Custody Due To Accused Remaining Silent: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that the right to remain silent is a fundamental right safeguarded under the constitution, and the investigating authority cannot file a second application for an extension of police custody owing to the fact that the accused was silent and did not give satisfactory answers. It said:

“It is relevant to note that with regard to the contention of the respondent/Investigating Agency that during interrogation the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards the transactions and he was silent, it is apt to note that to remain silent during the investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed to the appellant/A.31 as per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent/Investigating Agency cannot contend that the appellant could not give satisfactory reply towards certain transactions and he was silent.”

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K. Sujana in a criminal appeal filed by a member of the Popular Front Of India (PFI) undergoing criminal prosecution, whose remand order was extended by a period of 5 days.

It was stated that the National Investigating Agency arrested the accused/petitioner on 13^th June 2023, on the 14^th, he was sent to judicial custody, and on the 4^th of July, the investigating authority was given permission for police custody, and the petitioner was remanded for a period of 5 days.

It is submitted that the investigating authority had filed the second petition contending that 'the accused could not give satisfactory reply towards the same and investigation in the said case is under progress.'

On the 1^st of September 2023, it is stated that a second application was filed seeking custody of the accused/petitioner for an additional 5 days. The accused/petitioner challenged this on the ground that 30 days had elapsed from the time of arrest and the application for remand was to be moved within a period of 30 days from the date of the arrest as per section 167 Cr.P.C. and Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

However, the trial court allowed the application filed by NIA. Challenging the same, the present revision was  filed.

The Bench after analyzing the provisions of law and referencing settled judgements, held that a second application for extension of police custody can be filed after 30 days, provided that the investigating authority files along with the application an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and explaining the delay if any.

Hence, it was held that while the application filed by the NIA for extension was maintainable, in the facts of the present case, the reasons provided by the NIA were not satisfactory for extension of custody. It concluded:

“Thus, having contended that the  Investigating Officer has thoroughly interrogated the appellant during police custody, it cannot file second application contending that some new evidence has come forth against the accused which needs to be confronted with him. The said ground mentioned by the respondent/NIA is not a good ground for delay in moving the said application.”

CrlA 829 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: Hussain Aamir representing T. Rahul

Counsel for respondents: P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Special PP(NIA)

Click Here To Read/Download Order