SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                     [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1


         SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS.                        A
                              v.
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1158 of 2012)
                       JULY 20, 2012
                                                                 B
       [G. S. SINGHVI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

    CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

     s. 167 r/w s. 57 - Remand of accused in police custody      c
- On revival of complaint at the instance of a third party and
after accused were enlarged on bail by High Court - Held:
Grant of order for police remand should be an exception and
not a rule and for that investigating agency is required to
make out a strong case and must satisfy the Magistrate that
                                                                 0
without police custody it would be impossible for police
authorities to undertake further investigation - Order
permitting police remand cannot be treated lightly or casually
and strict adherence to the statutory provision is mandatory.

     s. 167 rlw s. 57 - Police remand - Held: In the instant     E
case, the order for police remand of appellants cannot be
sustained for: (i) courts below have overlooked the fact that
complainant had entered into a compromise with the alleged
accused/appellant in the civil suit and had withdrawn the
complaint which was later revived at the instance of a third     F
party who had nothing to do with the complaint and (ii) High
Court had granted bail to appellants which clearly had a
bearing on the plea seeking police remand - Disclosure of
reasons by magistrate allowing police remand specially in a
matter when accused has been enlarged on bail by High            G
Court is all the more essential - Constitution of India, 1950
-Art. 21.

    s. 167 - Police remand after accused had been granted,

                              1                                  H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A   bail by High Court - Procedure - Held: Correct course for
    investigating authorities should have been to approach the
    High Court as power of Magistrate to grant police remand after
    the accused has been granted bail by the High Court, would
    cease to exist - Therefore, High Court as also Judicial
s   Magistrate were not legally justified in permitting police
    remand of appellants even for three days in the wake of the
    existing facts and features of the matter - Impugned order
    passed by High Court as also that passed by Judicial
    Magistrate, permitting police remand of the appellants are set
c   aside-Practice and Procedure.

        s. 57 rlw s. 167 CrPC and Art. 22(2) - Detention of a person
    by police and period of remand in police custody - Discussed
    - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 21 and 22(2).

D      A complaint for offences punishable u/ss 406, 420,
  467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114, IPC was lodged against
  the appellants alleging that on the death of the husband
  of the complainant and his brothers, appellant no. 1
  forged and created a bogus power of attorney in the
E name of a fictitious person and got executed a registered
  sale deed in respect of her lands in favour of a third party
  without her knowledge. The complaint was registered as
  M. Case 1/2004. The complainant also filed a suit against
  appellant no. 1 which was compromised. The
F complainant and appellant no. 1 then appeared before
  the Judicial Magistrate and on their request, the Judicial
  Magistrate directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police
  to return the complaint. However, the petition filed by a
  stranger challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate,
                                                     •
G having been allowed by the High Court, complaint case
  M. Case 1/2004 got revived. Thereupon, the appellants
  approached the High Court and they were enlarged on
  regular bail. Six days thereafter, the D.S.P. filed an
  application before the Judicial Magistrate seeking police
  remand of the appellants for seven days in connection
H
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                3
                 GUJARAT
with M. Case 1/2004. The Judicial Magistrate allowed             A
police remand of the appellants for three days. The High
Court upheld the said order of remand.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court.

     HELD: 1.1. Grant of order for police remand should B
be an exception and not a rule and for that the
investigating agency is required to make out a strong
case and must satisfy the Magistrate that without the
police custody it would be impossible for the police
authorities to undertake further investigation and only in C
that event police custody would be justified. It is to be
borne in mind that detention in police custody is generally
disfavoured by law. The scheme of s.167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unambiguous in this regard
and is intended to protect the accused from the methods D
which may be adopted by some overzealous and
unscrupulous police officers which at times may be at the
instance of an interested party also. But in the
investigation of serious and heinous crimes, the
Legislature has permitted limited police custody. [para 10] E
[10-A-C, 0-F]

     1.2. It may be noted that Art. 22 (2) of the Constitution
of India and s. 57 Cr.P.C. give a mandate that every
person who is arrested and detained in police custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a         F
period of 24 hours of such arrest and no such person can
be detained in the police custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a magistrate. The initial period of
police custOdy of an ilrrested person till he is produced
before a Magistrate, is neither referable to nor is in           G
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. But, there
cannot be any detention in the police custody after the          H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   expiry of first 15 days even in a case where some more
    offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in
    the same transaction, come to light at a later stage. [para
    11 and 13) [10-E-H; 12-G-H; 13-A]

        Chaganti Narayan Satyanarayan & Ors v. State of
8
    Andhra Pradesh 1986 (2) SCR 1128 = 1986 AIR 2130; C.B./.
    v. Anupam J. Kulkarni 1992 (3) SCR 158 = (1992) 3 SCC
    141 - relied on.

       1.3. The order permitting police remand cannot be
C treated lightly or casually and strict adherence to the
  statutory provision is mandatory. In view of this, the order
  for police remand of the appellants cannot be sustained
  for more than one reason. In the first place, the courts
  below have overlooked the fact that the complainant had
D entered into a compromise with the alleged accused/
  appellant in the civil suit and finally withdrew the
  complaint. The Judicial Magistrate by order dated
  14.2.2005, therefore, rightly directed the D. S.P. to return
  the complaint by 15.2.2005. But, the High Court set aside
E this order on an application at the instance of a third
  person who had nothing to do with the complaint lodged
  by the complainant. However, the appellants having not
  challenged the said order passed by the High Court, as
  they had not been made party in the said application,
F this aspect of the matter cannot be examined. [para 14)
  [13-8-F]

      2.1. The High Court and the Magistrate also lost sight
  of the order of the High Court granting bail to the
  appellants on 23.3.2011 which clearly had a bearing on
G the plea seeking police remand. When the appellants were
  enlarged on bail, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate
  to meticulously examine the facts and circumstance as
  to whether it was so grave which persuaded the police
  authorities only after six days to file an application
H seeking police remand of the appellants. The Judicial
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                5
                 GUJARAT

Magistrate a.nd the' High Court have adopted a casual or A
a mechanical approach permitting police remand of the
appellants without scrutinizing the reasons ignoring the
fact that the appellants had already been enlarged on bail
by the High Court and the dispute with the complainant
who had lodged the complaint had already been settled. B
Thus, the existing facts and circumstance prima facie
were clearly not so grave or extraordinary justifying police
remand which could have been overlooked by the High
Court even though it was for three days only as it was
bound to have ramification not only affecting the liberty C
of the person who was already granted bail but also the
magistrate nullifying the order of the High Court granting .
bail, [para 15 and 17] [13-F-H; 14-A; 15-D-F]
     2.2. It is to be emphasized is that the disclosure of
reasons by the magistrate allowing police remand                 o
specially in a matter when the accused has been enlarged
on bail by the High Court is all the more essential and
cannot be permitted in absence of a valid and sufficiently
weighty reason seeking such custody as it clearly affects
the liberty of an individual who has been enlarged on bail       E
by a court of competent jurisdiction. [para 17] [16-A-C]
     2.3. The correct course for the investigating
authorities seeking police remand of the appellants
should have been to approach the High Court as power
of the magistrate to grant police remand after the accused       F
has been granted bail by the High Court, would cease to
exist and any direction to that effect can be permitted by
the High Court only and the magistrate cannot be
permitted to over-ride the order of bail even if it be for a
brief period of few days. [para 17] [16-C-E]                     G
     2.4. This Court, in the facts and features of the matter,
is of the considered opinion that the High Court as also
the Judicial Magistrate were not legally justified in
permitting the police remand of the appellants even for
three days. Consequently, the impugned orders passed             H
        6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


    A   by the High Court and the Principal Civil Judge
        and Judicial Magistrate First Class are set aside. [para 18]
        [17-A-C]

                             Case Law Reference:
    B       1986 (2)SCR1128           relied on             para 13
            1992 (3) SCR 158          relied on             para 13

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
        No. 1158 of 2012.
    c       From the Judgment & Order dated 29.09.2011 of the High
        Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCRLA No. 81 O of 2011.
            Huzefa Ahmadi, Ejaz Maqbool for the Appellants.

    D       Hemantika Wahi for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
           2. The appellants herein have assailed the judgment and
    E order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated
      29.09.2011 passed in Special Crl. Application No.810/2011
      alongwith- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11636/2011
      whereby the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the
      applications and thus upheld the order passed by the learned
    F Magistrate permitting police remand of the appellants herein
      for three days. for their interrogation in complaint case No.3/
      2004 registered in the court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class)
      Valod, Gujarat which had been referred to the police for
      investigation after which the said complaint was registered as
    G Talod M. Case No.1/2004.
             3. Before we consider the justification and correctness of
        the impugned order permitting police remand of the appellants,
•       the relevant factual details are required to be recorded which
        disclose that a lady named Surjaben widow of Badharsinh @
    H
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                   7
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
Babarsinh Chauhan aged approximately 80 years filed a               A
criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class
(JMIC) , Valod in Gujarat being case No.3/2004 against the
appellants alleging inter - alia that the husband of the
complainant namely Badharsinh @ Babarsinh Ratnaji Chauhan
had expired on 10.6.1967 and after his death and death of other     B
brot.hers of the husband of the complainant, name of the
complainant got entered in the revenue record. However, whan
the complainant obtained a copy of the revenue record in
respect of the aforesaid land, she came to know that one
Satyajitbhai Ballubhai Desai forged and created a bogus             C
power of attorney at the instance of the owner of the property
in the name of one Jaydipbhai Ranchhodbhai Solanki who is
a fictitious person and on the basis of the bogus and fabricated
power of.attorney, he got executed a registered sale deed on
2.8.2003 in favour of a 3rd party without the knowledge of the      D
complainant. The learned Magistrate sent the matter for
investigation to the police which registered it as Talod M.Case
No.1/2004.

     4. The complainant apart from filing the complaint against
the appellants also instituted e1; Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2004   E
in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Valod against
the appellant No.1 herein for declaration, permanent injunction
and cancellation of registered sale deed executed on 2.8.2003.
However, on appearance of the appellant No.~ in the civil suit,
a compromise came to be arrived at between the appellant            F
No.1 . Satyajit Ballubhai Desai and the compla.inant Surjaben
wherein the parties agreed that the criminal complaint filed by
the complainant will be withdrawn unconditionally. The learned
Civil Judge accepted the said compromise and directed to
draw a decree as per the terms of the compromise.
                                                                    G
    5. In view of the aforesaid compromise, the complainant
as also the appellant No.1 appeared before the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valod and prayed to withdraw
the criminal complaint. In view of the request made by the
parties, the Judicial Magistrate directed the Deputy                H
    8        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   Superintendent of Police Vyara to return the complaint by
    February 15, 2005. However, a third person and a stranger to
    the dispute namely Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar, who
    according to the appellants had nothing to do with the dispute
    between the complainant and the appellants herein, felt
8   aggrieved with the order dated February 15, 2005 passed by
    the JMFC and filed a Special Criminal Application No. 918/
    2007 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the order of
    JMFC by which the order of investigation in the complaint case
    had been directed to be returned.
c       6. The High Court, however, was pleased to allow this
  application and directed for investigation of the complaint which
  had been lodged by Surjaben. As a result of this order of the
  High Court dated November 30, 2007, the criminal complaint
  case No. 3/2004/Talod M.Case 1/2004 got revived in spite of
D the fact that a compromise decree had been drawn before the
  Civil Court in regard to the property for which criminal complaint
  had been lodged and the complainant had withdrawn the
  complaint but was revived by order of the High Court. The
  appellants, therefore, had to approach the High Court seeking
E anticipatory bail in the criminal complaint which was revived and
  the same was rejected but subsequently the High Court by order
  dated 23rd March, 2011 enlarged the appellants herein on
  regular bail. However, the Dy. S.P. Vyara only six days
  thereafter on 29.3.2011, filed an application before the Judicial
F Magistrate First Class,Valod Court, Valod seeking police
  remand of the appellants for seven days in connection with
  M.Case No.1/2004 based on the complaint of the complainant
  lady - Surjaben which had been registered with the Valod
  Police Station on the basis of the complaint lodged for offences
G under Section 406, 420, 467,468, 471, 504, 506 (2) and 114
  of the Indian Penal Code and had been withdrawn but was later
  revived as stated hereinbefore.
       7. The prayer made by the Dy. S.P. in the applic~tion
  seeking police remand for three days was partly allowed by the
H Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valod
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                     9
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]

permitting police remand of the appellants for three days             A
against which the appellants moved the High Court whereby a
stay against the order of police remand was passed in favour
of the appellants herein. However, when the matter was heard
finally, the High Court upheld the order passed by the
magistrate permitting police remand of the appellants for a           B
period of three days in view of the investigation which was
conducted in regard to the case lodged by the complainant-
Surjaben, finally giving rise to a case before the police for
investigation at the instance of a third party, namely,
Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar who was a stranger to the                 c
dispute.

     8. The appellants feeling aggrieved with the order passed
by the High Court and the JMIC permitting police remand of
the appellants for a period of three days has challenged this
order in this appeal essentially on the ground that the order         D
granting police remand of the appellants are not based on valid
or justifiable reason on the part of the investigating agency and
hence the same encroaches on the personal liberty of the
appellants as the appellants have never tried to scuttle the
investigation justifying police remand. It was further submitted      E
that the grant of police remand is an exception and not the rule
and therefore the investigating agency was required to make
a strong case for taking police custody of the appellants in
order to undertake further investigation and only in that event
police custody would be justified. The appellants having fully co-    F
operated with the investigating authority and having appeared
for questioning as and .when required after the grant of bail,
should not have been allowed to be sent for police remand on
the pretext of conducting further investigation as prayed for by
the investigating authority.                                          G

     9. Learned counsel for the State however has supported
the order of the JMFC and the High Court permitting police
remand of the appellants herein in view of revival of investigation
by the police.
                                                                      H
    10        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 5 S.C.R.


A        10. Having considered and deliberated over the issue
  involved herein in the light of the legal position and existing facts
  of the case, we find substance in the plea raised on behalf of
  the appellants that the grant of order for police remand should
  be an exception and not a rule and for that the investigating
B agency is required to make out a strong case and must satisfy
  the learned Magistrate that without the police custody it would
  be impossible for the police authorities to undertake further
  investigation and only in that event police custody would be
  justified as the authorities specially at the magisterial level would
c do well to remind themselves that detention in police custody
  is generally disfavoured by law. The provisions of law lay down
  that such detention/police remand can be allowed only in
  special circumstances granted by a magistrate for reasons
  judicially scrutinised and for such limited purposes only as the
  necessities of the case may require. The scheme of Section
0
  167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is unambiguous in
  this regard and is intended to protect the accused from the
  methods which may be adopted by some overzealous and
  unscrupulous police officers which at times may be at the
  instance of an interested party also. But it is also equally true
E that the police custody although is not the be-all and end-all of
  the whole investigation, yet it is one of its primary requisites
  particularly in the investigation of serious and heinous crimes.
  The Legislature also noticed this and, has therefore, permitted
  limited police custody.
F
         11. It may, therefore, be nqted that Article 22 (2) of the
  Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. gives a
  mandate that every person who is arrested and detained in
  police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate
G within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time
  necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court
  of the magistrate and no such person can be detained in the
  police custody beyond the said period without the authority of
  a magistrate. These two provisions clearly manifest the intention
H of the law in this regard and therefore it is the magistrate who
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                      11
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
has to judicially scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied can         A
order detention of the accused in police custody. 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 becomes             s
exercisable only after an accused is produced before him in
terms of sub section (1) of Section 167 Cr.P.C.

      12. The Judicial Magistrate thus in the first instance can
authorise the detention of the accused in such custody i.e. either      C
 police or judicial from time to time but the total period of
detention cannot exceed fifteen days in the whole. Within this
period of fifteen days there can be more than one order
changing the nature of such custody either from police to
judicial or vice-versa. If the arrested accused is produced
before the Executive Magistrate he is empowered to authorise            D
the detention in such custody either police or judicial only for a
week, in the same manner namely by one or more orders but
after one week he should transmit him to the nearest Judicial
 Magistrate along with the records. When the arrested accused
 is so transmitted the Judicial Magistrate, for the remaining           E
 period, that is to say excluding one week or the number of days
 of detention ordered by the Executive Magistrate, may
 authorise further detention within that period of first fifteen days
to such custody either police or judicial. After the expiry of first
period of fifteen days further remand during the period of              F
 investigation can only qe in judicial custody. There cannot be
any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen
days even in a case where some more offences either serious
or otherwise committed by him if the same transaction come
at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the same arrested      G
accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different
transaction.

    13. As the legal position noted above have an important
bearing in discharge of the day to day magisterial powers
                                                                        H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   contemplated under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C., we
    considered it appropriate to sum up briefly and reiterate the
    settled legal position that whenever any person is arrested
    under Section 57 Cr.P.C., he should be produced before the
    nearest Magistrate within 24 hours as mentioned therein. Such
B   Magistrate may or may not have jurisdiction to try the case. This
    position was further enunciated upon in Chaganti Narayan
    Satyanarayan & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986 AIR
    2130) wherein it was held that the terms of sub section (1) of
    Section 167 have to be read in conjunction with Section 57
c   which interdicts a police officer from keeping in custody 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 section (1) provides that if the
0
    investigation cannot be completed within the period of 24 hours
    fixed by Section 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
E   for a maximum period of 24 hours for purposes of investigation.
    In the landmark judgement of C.B.I. Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni
    (1992) 3 sec     141, it was held that the law does not authorise
    a police officer to detain an arrested person for more than 24
    hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the
    place of arrest to the magistrate court. Sub-section (1) of
F   Section 167 covers all this procedure and also lays down that
    the police officer while forwarding the accused to the nearest ·
    magistrate should also transmit a copy of the entries in the diary
    relating to the case. As already stated herein before, the initial
    period of police custody of an arrested person till he is
G   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 section (1) of Section 167. But there cannot be
H   any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first 15
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                    13
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
days even in a case where some more offences either serious           A
or otherwise committed by him if the same transaction comes
to light at the later stage.

     14. While examining the case of the appellants in the light
of the aforesaid legal position, it is apparent from the
                                                                      8
provisions of the Cr.P .C. that the order permitting police remand
cannot be treated lightly or casually and strict adherence to the
statutory provision is mandatory. In view of this, the order for
police remand of the appellants cannot be sustained for more
than one reason. In the first place, the courts below have
overlooked that the complainant Surjaben who had lodged the           C
complaint herself chose not to pursue the complaint as she had
entered into a compromise with the alleged accused/appellant
in the civil suit which she had filed against them and finally
withdrew the complaint. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class by
order dated 14.2.2005 therefore had rightly directed the Dy.          D
S.P. Vyara to return the complaint by February 15, 2005. But,
thereafter, what weighed with the High Court to set aside this
order and entertain an application at the instance of a third
person namely Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar who had nothing
to do with the complaint lodged by Surjaben is neither clear nor      E
does it stand to reason, but the appellants having not challenged
the said order passed by the High Court permitting revival of
the investigation at the instance of Sri Parmar as they had not
been made party in the said application, this aspect of the
matter cannot be examined herein by us.                               F

      15. However, even if the revival of the investigation was
rightly or wrongly justified, the High Court as also the Magistrate
lost sight of an important factor which is the order of the High
Court granting bail to the appellants on 23.3.2011 which clearly      G
had a bearing on the plea seeking police remand. When the
appellants were enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.3.2011,
it was incumbent upon the magistrate to meticulously examine
the facts and circumstance as to whether it was so grave which
persuaded the police authorities only after six days to file an
                                                                      H
    14        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A application seeking police remand of the appellants for seven
  days by filing an application on 29.3.2011 which was allowed
  by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
  Valod by order dated 31.3.2011 as apparently the same is
  beyond comprehension since no reason had been assigned.
B It is thus obvious that an extremely casual approach has been
  adopted by the Judicial Magistrate permitting such police
  remand overlooking the legal position and yet the High Court
  has also confirmed it overlooking and ignoring two very
  important aspects - first one being that the complainant
c although had withdrawn the complaint, the investigation was
  revived at the instance of a third party namely Sri Parmar who
  was wholly unconnected with the case and secondly that the
  appellants although had been enlarged on bail by the High
  Court in the case for which investigation had been revived, yet
  police remand was sought only six days after the grant of bail.
0
  In spite of these glaring inconsistencies writ large on the matter,
  the Judicial Magistrate allowed the request of the investigating
  authorities seeking police remand of the appellants without
  judicially scrutinizing and disclosing a single circumstance as
  to why it was so essential to seek police remand of the
E appellants for seven days in the interest of investigation which
  could· not proceed until tfiey were taken into police custody
  although they had already been enlarged on bail.

        16. When the accused appellant in the instant matter had
F already been enlarged on bail by the High Court, it was all the
  more ess.ential and judicial duty of the Judicial Magistrate to·
  ensure and ascertain as to why the appellant was required to
  be taken into police custody/police remand for conducting
  further investigation specially when revival of the investigation
G was done not even at the instance of the complainant but by a
  third person, namely, Sri Parmar whose locus-standi for revival
  of the investigation is itself not clear. We find sufficient force in
  the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the
  plea for grant of police remand should be an exception and not
H the rule and the investigating agency ought to advance strong
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                    15
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
reasons seeking police remand for further investigation               A
specially in a matter where the alleged accused had been
enlarged on bail and the dispute had practically come to an end
when the complainant had arrived at a compromise with the
accused persons and subsequently withdrew the complaint; yet
the investigation was revived at the instance of a stranger,          B
namely, Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar who admittedly is a third
party unconnected with the dispute and is alleged to have
demanded money from the appellants by taking undue interest
in the matter and getting the investigation revived without the
consent of the complainant who herself had entered into a             C
compromise with the appellant and had not sought revival of
the complaint.

    . 17. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned
Magistrate as also the High Court appears to have adopted a
casual or a mechanical approach permitting police remand of           D
the appellants without scrutinizing the reasons ignoring the fact
that the appellants had already been enlarged on bail by the
High Court and the dispute with the complainant Surjaben who
had lodged the complaint had already been settled. Thus, the
existing facts and circumstance prima facie were clearly not so       E
grave or extraordinary justifying police remand which could have
been overlooked by the High Court even though it was for three
days only as it was bound to have ramification not only affecting
the liberty of the person who was already granted bail but also
the magistrate nullifying the order of the High Court granting bail   F
even if it was for a period of three days o.nly. In fact when the
accused had been enlarged on bail by the High Court, it was
all the more essential initially for the police authorities and
thereafter by the magistrate to disclose and assign convincing
reasons why investigation could not proceed further without           G
seeking police remand of the accused and in case police
remand was sought on any ground of interference with the
investigation in any manner alleging influencing the witnesses
or tampering with the evidence in any manner, straightawc:)-y it
could have been a case for cancellation of bail of the accused
                                                                      H
     16        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A    and the magistrate could have directed the police authorities
     to approach the High Court seeking cancellation or any other
     appropriate direction. What is sought to be emphasized is that
     the disclosure of reasons by the magistrate allowing police
     remand specially in a matter when the accused has been
B    enlarged on bail by the High Court is all the more essential and
     cannot be permitted in absence of a valid and sufficiently
     weighty reason seeking such custody as it clearly affects the
     liberty of an individual who has been enlarged on bail by a court
     of competent jurisdiction. In fact, the correct course for the
C    investigating authorities seeking police remand of an accused
     who had been gr~nted bail by the High Court, should have been
     to approach the High Court as power of the magistrate to grant
     police remand after the accused has been granted bail by the
     High Court, would cease to exist and any direction to that effect
     can be permitted by the High Court only in view of the fact that
0
     the High Court considered it just and appropriate to enlarge the
     accused on bail and the magistrate cannot be permitted to
     over-ride the order of bail even if it be for a brief period of few
     days. This in our view is the only appropriate course
     considering the strict legal provisions in the Code of Criminal
E    Procedure wherein the Legislature has earmarked 24 hours
     minus the period of transportation of the accused from police
     station to the magistrate as the maximum period of police
     custody during the initial stage and not more than fifteen days
     by order of the Judicial Magistrate clearly is an indication that
F    police custody cannot be permitted without adherence to strict
     judicial scrutiny from which it is obvious that it cannot be
     allowed without assigning clear and cogent reason for
     enhancement of the period of police remand and the same
     would all the more be essential when police remand is sought
G    for an accused who has been enlarged on bail by the High
     Court. The inference is thus candid and clear that police remand
     of the accused - more so, who has been enlarged on bail
     cannot be granted for an undisclosed or a flimsy reason.

          18. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position,
H·
SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. v. STATE OF                 17
       GUJARAT [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
we are of the considered opinion that the High Court as also       A
the Judicial Magistrate were not legally justified in permitting
the police remand of the appellants even for three days in the
wake of the existing facts and· features of the matter narrated
hereinbefore. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order
passed by the High Court as also the order dated 31.3.2011         B
passed by the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Valod permitting police remand of the appellants
and thus allow this appeal.

R.P.                                          Appeal allowed.




                                    •