DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

                    (2010] 5 S.C.R. 1195


            DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC.                             A
                               v.
            STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
          (Criminal Appeal Nos. 988-989 of 2010)

                         MAY 5, 2010
                                                                   B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

    _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 167(1) - Remand
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.

     FIR was registered against the appellant u/ss. 498-A,
406, 506, 323 rw. s. 34 IPC. The appellant was arrested            F
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
    remand of the appellant. Hence the present appeals.
B
        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 1O] [1201-A-C]

        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
H
  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.
                                                                 B
                     ease Law Reference:
    1992 (3) sec 141            Relied on.          Para 10

    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.
                                                             E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.

    ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These Appeals arise out of the judgment and order
passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 19th March,         F
2010, in Crl.M. Nos.28847 and 28849 of 2008, allowing the
application filed by the Station House Officer, Hodal Police
Station, praying for police remand of the accused, Devender
Kumar, for three days.
                                                                 G
     3. Jt appears that when the Appellant No.1, Devender
Kumar, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Palwal
on 8th October, 2008, in connection with case FIR No.333
dated 18th September, 2008, registered at Hodal Police
Station, District Faridabad under Sections 498-A, 406, 506,      H
    1198    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (201 OJ 5 S.C.R.


A 323 read with Section 34 IPC, an application was made for
  police remand by an officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-
  Inspector, which was rejected vide an order dated 8.10.2008,
  as tbe said application was contrary to the provisions of Section
  167(1) Cr.P.C. which provide that an application for police
B remand can be made only by an officer not below the rank of
  Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, the Appellant No.1 was remanded
  to judicial custody and was directed to be produced on 22nd
  October, 2008. Subsequently, however, the position was
  rectified and as indicated hereinabove, an application was
c made by the S.H.O., Hodal, on 9th October, 2008, praying for
  grant of police remand of the accused/appellant Devender
  Kumar for a period of three days. It was mentioned therein that
  custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary for
  recovery of the dowry articles. The said application was
  dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10th October,
0
  2008. The learned Magistrate granted bail to Appellant No.1
  by another order dated 10th October, 2008. The Respondent
  No.4, Kavita alias Shama, filed Criminal Misc. No.28847-M and
  28849-M of 2008 in the High Court of Punjab and Hary~ma
E praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants.
  She also prayed for quashing of the orders dated 8.10.2008
  and 10.10.2008 by which the application for remand of
  Appellant No.1 had been rejected. By the impugned order da(ed
  19th March, 2010, the High Court allowed the Criminal Misc.
  Petitions and quashed the orders dated 8.10.2008 and
F 10.10.2008 upon holding that Devender Kumar, the Appellant
  No.1 herein, had made a disclosure statement that dowry
  articles had been given to him and those articles were lying in
  his house at Delhi, which could be identified and recovered.
  Aggrieved by the order dated 19~'.r.2010 passed by the High
G Court in Criminal Misc. Nos. 28847-M and 28849-M of 2008,
  the appellants have filed this appeal.

       4. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Siddharth Luthra,
  learned Senior Advocate, urged that the order of the High Court
H impugned in these proceedings, directing cancellation of bail
   DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF                  1199
    HARYANA & ORS. ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

granted to the Appellants and further allowing the application A
for police remand filed on behalf of the Investigating Authorities
and directing the arrest of the Appellants herein and committing
them to police custody, was not only contrary to the established
principles relating to cancellation of bail, but also violated the
provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. Mr. Luthra contended that B
once a disclosure statement was made, there was no further
need for custodial interrogation as sought for by the
investigating agency. He also submitted that there was no
allegation that the Appellants had either misused the privilege
of bail and had interfered with the investigation or had resorted , c
to tampering with the evidence of witnesses or threatened them
so as to disrupt the smooth process of investigation.

     5. There is no allegation either that the Appellants had
made themselves unavailable to the investigating agency after
being released on bail. It was urged that despite the above, the   D
High Court allowed the prayer for police remand simply upon
observing that the Appellant No.1 made disclosures during
investigation that ~he dowry articles which were given to him
were lying in his house at Delhi which could be identified ~nd
recovered. A further contention was raised by Mr. Luthra that      E
after an application for police remand had been dismissed
when the Appellants were initially arrested and produced before
the learned Magistrate, a second application for police remand
was not maintainable and that the order of the High Court
cancelling the grant of bail to the Appellants was also bad on     F
such ground.

     6. Mr. P.R. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the
Respondent No.4-Complainant, however, submitted that the
order of the High Court did not require any interference, since    G
a large number of articles given by way of dowry and which
were admitted to have been received by the Appellants, were
yet to be recovered and such recovery could be made only
under custodial interrogation. The same view was expressed
by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General
                                                                   H
    1200     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 5 S.C.R.


A   appearing for the State of Haryana.

        7. As to t':l'e .second branch of Mr. Luthra's submissions
    that a second application for police remand was not
    maintainable after the dismissal of the first, reference was
B   made to a decision of this Court in Central Bureau of
    Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi. vs.
    Anupam J. Kulkarni [(1992) 3 SCC 141], wherein the
    provisions of Section 167 Cr.i;>.c. were gone into in some detail
    and the very question which is now before us was also
    considered and it was held that within the first 15 days period
C of remand, the Magistrate could direct police custody other than
    judicial custody, but if the investigation was not completed within
    the first 15 Clays' period of remand, no further police remand
  · could be made. It was emphasized that police remand would
    only be made during the first 15 days after arrest and
D production before the magistrate and not othe!"'1ise, although,
    judicial remand could extend to 60 days from the date of arrest
    and in special cases, to within 90 days.

        8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on
E   behalf of the respective parties and we are of the view that the
    order of the High Court requires intervention on the two points
    argued by Mr. Luthra.

          9. Bail ~ad been granted to the Appellants by the learned
    Magistrate, Palwal, on 10th October, 2008, and as indicated
F   hereinbefore, there is no allegation that the same had been
    misused or that any attempt had been made after the
    Appellants were granted bail to recover the articles alleged to
    have been given to the Appellant No.1 at the time of marriage
    with the complainant. The reason given by the High Court for
G   cancellation of the orders granting bail and directing the arrest
    of the Appellants on the ground that disclosures have been
    made by the Appellants and that their police custody was
    necessary for recovery of the same, is, in our view, not sufficient
    for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted earlier.
H
   DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF                  1201
    HARYANA & ORS. ETC. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

     10. With regard to the second point which was urged by         A
Mr. Luthra, the same was considered in depth and was settled
in the case of Anupam J. Kulkami's case (supra) referred to
hereinabove. What is clear is the fact that police remand can
only be made during the first period of remand after arrest and
production before the Magistrate, but not after the expiry of the   B
said period. Of course, we do not agree with the submissions
made by Mr. Luthra that the second application for police
remand is not maintainable even if made during the first 15 days
period aftef arrest. The said point has also been considered
and decided in the above case. Within the first 15 days of arrest   c
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 remand.

    11. Having regard to the facts of the case, we allow these D
appeals and set aside the impugned order directing
cancellation of bail and re-arrest passed by the High Court
dated 19th March, 2010, and restore that of the learned ·
Magistrate passed on 10th October, 2008.

N.J.                                          Appeals allowed.