The Delhi High Court’s bench presided by Justice Anu Malhotra was dealing with the issue whether accused could be remanded to police custody after expiry of first 15 days.
The facts of the case are that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Chawla, a citizen of the United Kingdom, is arrayed as accused for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to an alleged conspiracy to fix matches during the India-South Africa Cricket series played through February-March, 2000 in alleged connivance with Mr. Hansie Cronje, Captain of the South Africa Cricket Team, who died in 2002 in an air crash.
Three accused persons were arrested, the present petitioner Sanjeev Chawla and Manmohan Khattar allegedly absconded with having left for the United Kingdom and Canada/USA respectively. The present petitioner has been extradited to India from the United Kingdom and reached on 13.02.2020 at the IGI Airport, New Delhi where the case is now pending trial.
An application was thereafter filed by the State seeking the grant of 14 days Police Custody of the petitioner herein for confronting him with the evidence allegedly collected against him and to unearth the conspiracy and to find out the details of the persons who were involved.
Contention raised by the petitioner urged before the Trial Court was to the effect that in terms of the Letters of Assurances of the Government of India, the petitioner had to be kept at the Tihar Jail complex, Delhi during the pre-trial detention and in the event of the prison sentence upon conviction also and that thus, the petitioner could not be remanded to police custody and that the charge sheet having been filed, the police could not investigate the matter without permission of the Court.
It was further contended that the extradition proceedings had commenced earlier and bail had been granted to the petitioner at London and therefore, the period of 15 days from his arrest in London having expired, no police remand could be granted.
The Trial Court vide the impugned order observed that the petitioner had been granted bail in the United Kingdom and had thus not remained in custody even for a single day and thus the accused could be remanded to police custody even after 15 days excluding the period of bail. The Trial Court also observed to the effect that as per the Letter of Assurance, the Government of India had assured that the petitioner would be kept at the Tihar Jail complex, Delhi during the pre-trial detention and upon conviction by the Competent Court but that the stage of pre-trial did not include the stage of investigation and that the police custody remand sought was thus held vide the impugned order to be not against the spirit of the letter of the Government of India.
Additional Solicitor General for the Supreme Court, Mr. Sanjay Jain on behalf of the Union of India has expressly stated before the Delhi High Court that to the effect that the terms of the Letter of Assurances would be followed in letter and spirit and that the petitioner would not be taken out of the Tihar Jail complex except with permission, if any, granted by the Court, in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC, 1973.
The Delhi High Court disposed the petition with directions to the effect that the impugned order of the Trial Court granting police custody remand of 12 days of the petitioner, is modified to the effect that the petitioner during the entire stage of pre-trial detention, trial and conviction, if any, would continue to be lodged at the Tihar Jail complex in adherence with the terms of the said Letter of Assurances and cannot be allowed to be taken out of the Tihar Jail complex for the purpose of investigation or interrogation in police custody, though the Investigating Agency in the matter is permitted to conduct the interrogation of the petitioner at the Tihar Jail complex only in terms of the timeline stipulated in terms of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.PC, 1973, that is to the extent of the period of a term not exceeding 15 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner.
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court Judgement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, wherein it was observed that,
“The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused in such custody i.e., either 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. After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigation - can only be 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 in the same transaction come to light at a later stage.”
The High Court opined that there is no sign in the Section that the nature of the custody cannot be altered. In fact, experience would show that investigation would be hampered and made more difficult if the nature of the custody was not capable of alteration in the first 15 days.
Read the Judgement:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
