CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 08-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
1128 
CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MAY 8, 1986 
[A.P. SEN ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 167(2)(a) - Scope of -
Period of 90 days - Computation of - Whether 
from date oft' 
remand or date of arrest of accused. 
The appellants were arrested in the forenoon of July 19, 
>--
C 
1985 in connection with a riot which resulted in a toll of 
human lives and huge destruction of property. They werer 
produced before the Munsiff Magistrate on July 20, 1985 and .. 
were remanded to judicl.al custody till October 18, 1985. 
The police· ft led a charge-sheet against the appellants 
D 
on October 17, 1985 that being the 90th day of remand. Even 
so, the appellants filed a petition before the Magistrate and 
sought enlargement on bail in terms of proviso (a) to s. 
167(2) 
of the 
Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 
The 
learned 
Magistrate, overruling the objection of the State, granted 
bail to the appellants on the ground that the period of 90_. 
E 
days stipulated in the proviso had to be reckoned from the 
date of arrest and not from the date of remand and so 
computed, the charge-sheet had not been filed on the 90th day 
...._ 
but on 9lst day and hence the accused/appellants were entitled 
to bail. The respondent-State challenged the order of bail 
before the High Court by means of a petition under s. 439(2)~ 
F 
of the Code. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
petition holding that the period of 90 days envisaged by 
thi:_,-
proviso to s. 167(2) has to be computed only from the date o!f 
remand and therefore cancelled the bail and directed the 
magistrate to issue warrants of arrest for the appellants. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal of the appellants-accused. 
HELD: 
1. The High Court was right in allowing the • 
petition filed by the State for cancellation of the 
bail~ 
granted to the appellants. As the Munsiff Magistrate has 
granted bail to the appellants before the expiry of 90 days of 
H 
remand period allowed under law, the order of the Magistrate 
C, SATYANARAYAN v. STATE 
ll29 
will not tantamount to one passed under the provisions of 
r' Chapter XXXIII of the Code and hence there is no scope for 
contending that re-arrest of the appellants can be ordered 
only in terms of sub-s.(5) of s.437. After the appellants 
surrender themselves to custody or are taken into custody by 
re-arrest, 
they will 
not 
stand precluded 
from 
seeking 
enlargement on bail by filing applications under sub-s.(i) of 
s.437 of the Code and satisfying the court that they deserve 
~to be enlarged on bail. [1148 G-H; 1149 A-Bl 
2. (i) ,On a reading of the sub-ss. (1) a11d (2) it may be 
seen that sub-s.(1) is a mandatory provision governing what a 
police officer should do when a person i.s arrested and 
y detained in custody and it appears that the investigation 
cannot be completed within the period of 24 hours fixed by s. 
~ 57. Sub-s. (2) on the other hand pertains to the powers of 
remand available to a Magistrate and the manner in which such 
powers should be exercised. The terms of sub-s. (1) of s. 167 
have to be read in conjunction with s. 57. 
Section 57 
interdicts a police officer from keeping in ·~ustody a person 
without warrant for a longer period than 24 hours without 
production before a Magistrate, subject to the exception that 
the time 
taken for performing journey from the place of 
• arrest to the Magistrate's court can be excluded from the 
prescribed period of 24 hours. Since sub-s. (1) provides that 
if the investigation cannot be completed within the period of 
24 hours fixed by s. 57 the accused has to be forwarded to the 
Magistrate alongwith the entries in the Diary, it follows that 
a police officer is entitled to keep an arrested person in 
.._. custody for a maximm period of 24 hours for purposes of 
investigation. The resultant position is that the initial 
period of custody of an arrested person till he is produced 
~before a Magistrate is neither referable to nor in pursuance 
of an order of remand passed by a Magistrate. In fact the 
powers of remand given to a Magistrate become exercisable only 
after an accused is produced before him in terms of sub-s. (1) 
of s. 167, [1138 B-C] 
• 
2,(ii) Sub-s. (2) of s. 
167 empowers 
the Magistrate 
... before whom an accused is produced for purpose of remand, 
whether he has jurisdiction or not to try the case, to order 
the detention of the accus~d, P.ither in policy custody or in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
j

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