R.N. Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2005 Latest Caselaw 1000 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. This writ petition is filed by Mr. R.N. Sharma for the following reliefs:-

(a) That the successive arrests and police remands of the petitioner by withholding the information that the accused was required to be arrested in other similar cases at the time of the first remand as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 1 of the Constitution, and;

(b) "That the police officer conducting an investigation must disclose to the Court at the time of the first remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as join how many more cases interrogation, arrest and custodial interrogation remand of the accused may be required, and;

(c) That successive arrests in similar cases, obtained, to circumvent the law, without disclosing the further case/cases in which the accused may be required to be arrested as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and;

(d) That successive police remands in similar cases, beyond the period of maximum permissible police remand in one case, obtained without disclosing the cases in which the accused may be required to be arrested to circumvent the law as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and;

(e) That the total permissible period of remand in similar cases, in excess of what is provided for under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for one case, when the Investigating Officer could anticipate arrests of the accused in more than one case, at the time when the first police remand was applied for, as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and;

(f) To issue any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

2. It is contended that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to point out the need of the accused in another case more particularly, when information was already lodged. This question is required to be examined in view of the following facts.

3. CBI registered in all six information reports for offences punishable under Section 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of Ranbir Penal Code Samat 1989, section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of PC Act, Sanwat 2006 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

4. There were different conspiracies. In the first case, namely, RC No. 11 was taken by the Investigating Officer and the accused was produced on 29.9.2001 before the Court having the jurisdiction. The Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted police remand for 14 days and thereafter accused was produced before the Court on 13.10.2001. He was taken in judicial custody. On 24.12.2001 he was released on bail by the Magistrate. In view of the provisions contained in Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. default bail. It is contended that in connection with the RC No. 4 he was arrested on 17.5.2002 and was produced before the competent court which granted police remand for 14 days. He was represented by the counsel, who informed the Court about the arrest made earlier by some other Investigating Officer. After hearing the counsel and considering the facts, the accused was remanded to police custody for 14 days. He was produced on 31.5.2002 before the Court. Then as the charge sheet was not filed within the time stipulated, he was required to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on 16.8.2002. It is required to be noted at this juncture that before he was so released, he was arrested in connection with RC 12 on 14.8.2002 and was produced before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court was also informed about the earlier arrest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court granted police remand for seven days and accused was produced before the Court on 21.8.2002. Thereafter, he was taken in judicial custody. It transpires that on 24.8.2002 the accused moved an application for anticipatory bail with regard to other offences.

5. It transpires that ultimately on 18.9.2002 anticipatory bail application was disposed off and accused surrendered to judicial custody with regard to RC No. 13. When he was produced before the Competent Court on 23.9.2002, the Court granted remand for 7 days. Learned counsel also stated that the facts were before the Court about the arrest of the accused in previous cases. He was produced on 1.10.2002 before the Court of Competent jurisdiction and he was taken in judicial custody. It transpires that he as released on bail on 16.12.2002. From the report submitted by the CBI, it also transpires that over and above these other cases, namely, RC 14 and RC 7 were lodged against the accused, however, the Investigating Officer did not arrest the accused in view of the paucity of evidence at the relevant time.

6. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Uday Chand and Ors. v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J and K and Ors. 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 529, learned counsel submitted that the subsequent arrests are not in accordance with law. The Apex Court has observed in para 5 as under:-

"5. Mr. Kacker stated before us that the petitioners were enlarged on bail in pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on March 2, 1981 but they were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to March 2, 1981. We are quite amazed at this statement and we should have expected that if after the order of bail passed by us the authorities of the State considered it fit to arrest any of the petitioners for any other offences, it was their bounden duty to apprise this Court before taking these persons in custody, especially when no disclosure was made to us when we passed the order of bail that any case or cases were under investigation against any of the petitioners. We regret that this elementary courtesy to this Court was not shown. We would like to reiterate that the petitioners shall be treated as free citizens inspite of the fact that they have been subsequently arrested which arrests are clearly contrary to the order of bail passed by this Court".

7. It is required to be noted that in the case of Uday Chand (Supra) the accused were enlarged on bail by the Apex Court by an order dated March 2, 1981 and subsequent arrests were for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to March 2, 1981. In the instant case, what we notice is that at every stage, the Court of competent jurisdiction was informed about the arrest of the accused in earlier case. In the instant case, what is important is that the Court of competent jurisdiction is the Court of Additional District Judge and not the Judicial Magistrate. When the Court of competent jurisdiction was informed about the arrest made earlier and thereafter considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including remand granted arlier the Court had passed the order, it was for the petitioner to challenge the order at the relevant time. He is on bail at present, and, the CBI has even not arrested the accused wherever there was no evidence and in view of this we are of the opinio that this petition is not required to be further entertained and is dismissed accordingly.