CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL-I, NEW DELHI versus ANUPAM J. KULKARNI

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 08-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGA:tlON, SPECIAL 
r-
INVESTIGATION CELL-I, NE,W DELHI. 
' 
ANUPAM J. KULKARNI 
B 
MAYS, 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
.).... 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 167( 1)-f'erson arrested 
and produced before Magistrat~emand to police custody after initial period 
c of 15 days-Whether legal. 
-
A case relating to abduction of four diamond merchants and one K 
was registered at Police Station o,n 16.9.91. The investigation was entrusted 
to C.B.I. During investigation it was disclosed that between 14th and 1$th 
)( 
September 1991, the four diamond merchants, K and one driver were 
D 
ki~apped from two hotels, and that K was one of the associates of the 
accused, responsible for the kidnapping. 
/ 
On 4.10.91 K was arrested and was produced before the Chief 
Metropolitan Magistrate, on 5.10.91 and he was remanded to judicial 
E custody till 11.10.91. 
On 10.10.91 a test identification parade was arranged but K refused 
to cooperate and his refusal was recorded by the concerned Magistrate. 
On 11.10.91 the investigating officer moved an application, seeking 
F 
police custody of K, which was allowed: 
When he was being taken on the way K pretended to be indisposed 
~ 
and he was taken to a Hospital, where he remained confined on the ground 
of illness upto 21.10.91 and then he was referred to Cardic Out-patient 
Department of the Hospital. K was again remanded to judicial custody by 
G the Magistrate upto 29.10.91 and thereafter he was sent to Jail. 
As the Police could not take him into police custody all these days 
the investigating officer again applied to the court of Chief Metropolitan 
M~gistrate for police custody of K. 
H 
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate relying on a judgment in State 
158 
-
-
C.B.I. v. AJ. KULKARNI 
159 
(Delhi Admn.) v. Dharam Pal and others, 1982 Crl. W. 1103 refused police A 
remand. 
A revision was filed before the High Court against the order of the 
Magistrate. 
The High Court, without deciding the question, whether or not after B 
the expiry of the initial period of 15 days a person could still be remanded 
to police custody by the Magistrate before whom he was produced, granted 
K bail. 
' 
In these appeals, the C.B.I. challenged the order of the High Court, C 
contending that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in not granting 
police custody and that Dharam Pal's case on which he placed reliance was 
wrongly decided; that the High Court erred in granting bail to K without 
deciding the question whether he can be remanded to police custody; that 
a combined reading of Section 167(2) and the proviso therein would make 
it clear that if for any reason the police custody could not be obtained . D 
during the period of first fifteen days yet a remand to the police custody 
even later was not precluded. 
The respondent-accused submitted that the police custody if at all 
be granted by the Magistrate u/s. 167 Cr. P.C. should be only during the E 
period of first 15 days from the date of production of the accused before 
the Magistrate and not later and that subsequent custody if any should 
only be judicial custody and the question of granting police custody after 
the expiry of first 15 days remand did not arise. 
On the question, Whether a person arrested and produced before F 
the nearest Magistrate as requied under Section 167(1) Code of Criminal 
Procedure could still be remanded to police custody after the expiry of the 
initial period of 15 days, this Court dismissing the appeals of the C.B.I., 
HELD: 1.01. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 
57 of Cr. P.C. give a mandate that every person who is arrested and G 
detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate 
within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the tim~ necessary for 
the journey from the place of the arrest to the court of the magistrate and 
no such person shall be detained in the custody beyond the said peri~d 
without the authority of a magistrate. These two provisions clearly H 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
manifest the intention of the law in this regard and therefore it is the 
magistrate who has to judicially scrutinise cicumstances and if satisfied . 
)-
B 
c 
can order the detention of the accused in police custody. (175 CJ 
1.02. The detention in police custody is generally disfavoured by law. 
The provisions of law lay down that such detention can be allowed only in 
special cir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.