LexPRADEEP RAM versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R. PRADEEP RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 816-817 of 2019) JULY 01, 2019 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 437(5) and 439(2) – Arrest of accused who was on bail – After addition of further cognizable and non-bailable offence – Whether permissible without seeking cancellation of the bail earlier granted – Held: The court in exercise of power u/ss. 437(5) and 439(2) can direct arrest of accused who was already on bail, after addition of graver and non-cognizable offences, even without cancelling earlier bail – It is not open to the investigating authority to proceed to arrest without the permission of the Court, on addition of further offences – In the present case, the investigating agency had approached the Court seeking arrest of the accused after addition of further offences – There was no error in the procedure adopted by Special Judge in remanding the accused to judicial custody. s. 167 and 309(2) – Remand of accused to judicial custody – In a case where cognizance has already been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate – Whether has to be in exercise of power u/s. 167 or u/s. 309(2) – Held: Accused can be remanded u/s. 167(2) during investigation till cognizance is taken by the Court – After cognizance has been taken and the accused was in custody at the time of taking cognizance or when inquiry or trial was being held in respect of him, he can be remanded to judicial custody only u/s. 309(2) – Thus, in the present case, accused could have been remanded only u/s. 309(2)– However, the remand order in the present case, does not mention the provision under which remand was granted – Therefore, the remand order has to be treated as order passed in exercise of power u/s. 309(2). [2019] 8 S.C.R. 824 824 A B C D E F G H 825 FIR: Re-registration of FIR – After addition of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, to the FIR – Whether barred being a second FIR – Held: Second FIR with regard to the same offences is barred – But, in the facts of the present case, re- registration of the FIR cannot be called second FIR – It was, in fact, re-registration of FIR to give effect to the provisions of National Investigation Agency Act – Therefore, re-registration of FIR was not barred. Investigation: Further investigation – By National Investigation Agency (NIA) – On addition of further offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in the FIR – After investigation in the previous FIR was over – Permissibility – Held: Investigation by NIA was permissible as offences under 1967 Act were not added when charges were framed in the previous FIR – Even u/s. 173(2) of Cr.P.C., it is open to the police authorities to conduct further investigation and submit a report u/s. 173(8) – There was no lack of jurisdiction in NIA to carry on further investigation and submit a supplementary report in the facts of the present case – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 173(2) and (8). Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1 Both Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to arrest an accused and commit him to custody, who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII. There may be numerous grounds for exercise of power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2). A person against whom serious offences have been added, who is already on bail can very well be directed to be arrested and committed to custody by the Court in exercise of power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2). Cancelling the bail granted to an accused and directing him to arrest and taken into custody can be one course of the action, which can be adopted while exercising power under Sections 437(5) and 439(2), but there may be cases where without cancelling the bail granted to an accused, on relevant consideration, Court can direct the accused to be arrested and committed to custody. The addition of serious offences is one of such circumstances, under which PRADEEP RAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. A B C D E F G H 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R. the Court can direct the accused to be arrested and committed to custody despite the bail having been granted with regard to the offences with which he was charged at the time when bail was considered and granted. [Para 21] [841-D-G] 1.2 Sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C uses expression ‘if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.