LexMANUBHAI RATILAL PATEL TR. USHABEN versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 993 MANUBHAI RATILAL PATEL TR. USHABEN A v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: B Art.226 - Petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging c the order of remand -Held: A writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal 0 - The effect of order of High Court regarding stay of investigation could only have bearing on the action of investigating agency - Investigation is neither an inquiry nor a trial - It is within the exclusive domain of police to investigate and is independent of any control by the Magistrate - The E sphere of activity is clear cut and well demarcated - Thus viewed, there is no error in the order passed by High Court refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus as the detention by virtue of judicial order passed by the Magistrate remanding the accused to custody is valid in Jaw. F CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.2(h) - 'Investigation' - Explained. An FIR for offences punishable u/s 467, 468, 471, 409 and 114 IPC was registered against the appellant on G 20.6.2012. He filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court for quashing of the FIR. Meanwhile, the appellant was arrested on 16.7.2012. On 17.7.2012, the Magistrate 993 H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A remanded him to police custody. On 17.7.2012, the High Court stayed the further proceedings in respect of the investigation. On 19. 7.2012, the appellant filed an application for bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. which was declined by the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge rejected the prayer B for grant of interim bail and fixed the bail application for hearing. The appellant then filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court contending that since the investigation was stayed by the High Court in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could not have c exercised the powers u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. remanding him either to police or judicial custody, and as such, his detention was illegal and non est in law. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was D contended that once there was stay of the investigation, the detention was unsustainable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1 The principle laid down in Kanu Sanyal*, is that any infirmity in the detention of the petitioner at the initial stage cannot invalidate the subsequent detention and the same has to be judged on its own merits. [Para 21] [1007-E-F] F *Kanu Sanyal v: Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling and others 1974 (3) SCR 279=AIR 1974 SC 510; Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab 1952 SCR 395 =AIR 1952 SC 106; Co/. Dr. 8. Ramachandra Rao v. The State of Orissa and others AIR 1971 SC 2197; Talib Hussain v. State of Jammu and G Kashmir AIR 1971 SC 62 and Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.8.1., Bombay (II) 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 = (1994) 5 SCC 410 - referred to. 1.2 Keeping in view the concepts with regard to the H writ of habeas corpus, especially pertaining to an order MANUBHAI RATILAL PATEL TR. USHABEN v. STATE 995 OF GUJARAT passed by the Magistrate at the time of production of the A accused, it is necessary to advert to the schematic postulates under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to remand. There are two provisions in the Code which provide for remand, i.e., ss. 167 and 309. The Magistrate has the authority u/s 167(2) to direct for B detention of the accused in such custody, i.e., police or judicial, if he thinks that further detention is necessary. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. The exercise of jurisdiction c clearly shows that the act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function, and while doing so the Magistrate does not act in executive capacity. [Para 23-25) [1008-A-C-F; 1009-B] Ranjit Singh v. The State of Pepsu (now Punjab) 1959 D Suppl. SCR 727 =AIR 1959 SC 843; Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others 1974 (1) SCR 621= AIR 1973 SC 2684; Ummu Sabeena v. State of Kera/a and others 2011 (13) SCR 185 = (2011) 10 SCC 781; Re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.