DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1195 · Decided: 05-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 5 S.C.R. 1195 
DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 988-989 of 2010) 
MAY 5, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
_Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 167(1) - Remand 
A 
B 
to police custody - Accused arrested and produced before 
Magistrate - Dismissal of application for police remand -
C 
Accused remanded to judicial custody -
Subsequently, 
second application for police remand for three days a/so 
dismissed -
Accused released on bail -
Prayer for 
cancellation of bail and for grant of police remand - Allowed 
by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court not justified in o 
cancelling the order of bail and directing the arrest of accused 
on the ground that since disclosures were made by accused, 
his police custody was necessary for recovery of the same -
Police remand can only be made during the first 15 days 
period of remand after arrest and production before the 
E 
magistrate, but not after the expiry of the said period - Thus, 
order of High Court set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498-
A, 406, 506, 323134. 
F 
FIR was registered against the appellant u/ss. 498-A, 
406, 506, 323 rw. s. 34 IPC. The appellant was arrested 
and produced before the Magistrate. The Assistant-Sub-
Inspector filed an application praying for police remand. 
The application was dismissed and the appellant was 
remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the SHO 
filed application for grant of police remand of the 
G 
appellant for three days, on the ground that custodial 
interrogation of the accused was necessary for recovery 
of the dowry articles. The application was dismissed and 
the appellant was granted bail. Respondent no. 4 filed 
1195 
H 
1196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A application for cancellation of bail and for quashing the 
order rejecting the application for remand of the appellant 
no. 1. The High Court cancelled the bail granted to the 
appellant and allowed the application praying f()r police 
B 
remand of the appellant. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Bail had been granted to the appellants 
by the Magistrate, on 10th October, 2008, and there is no 
allegation that the same had been misused or that any 
C attempt had been made after the appellants were granted 
bail to recover the articles alleged to have been given to 
the appelldnt 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 
D arrest of the appellants on the ground that discl9sures 
have been made by the appellants and that their police 
custody was necessary for recovery of the same, is not 
sufficient for the purpose' of cancellation of bail granted 
earlier. [Para 9] [1200-E-H] 
E 
1.2. It is clear that police remand can only be ma'de 
during the first period of remand after arrest and 
production before the Magistrate, but not after the expiry 
of the said period. It cannot be said that the second 
\ 
application for police remand is not maintainable even if 
F 
made during the first 15 days period after arrest. Within 
the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate 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 
G remand. [Para 1 O] [1201-A-C] 
H 
1.3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the 
impugned order directing cancellation of bail and re-
arrest passed by the High Court is set aside and that of 
DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF 
1197 
HARYANA & ORS. ETC. 
the Magistrate granting bail to the appellants, passed on 
A 
10th October, 2008 is restored. [Para 11] '1201•0] 
Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation · 
Cell-/, New Delhi vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni 1992 (3) SCC 141, 
relied on. 
ease Law Reference: 
1992 (3) sec 141 
Relied on. 
Para 10 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crj_IJ1inal Appeal 
No(s). 988-989 of 2010. 
C 
·From the Judgment & Order dated 19.03,2010 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haiyana at Chandigarh in Crinimal Misc. No. 
M-28847 of 2008 and Criminal Misc. No. M-28849 of 2008. 
D 
Siddarth Luthra, Aditya Chaudhary, Dharmendra Kumar 
Sinha for the Appellants. 
· 
·'Manjit.Singh, AAG, P.R. Agarwal, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj -
Dayal, Ajay K'.. jain Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave gran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.