Brief Facts
- CBI was granted police custody of accused for a period of 7 days on 16.04.2021, however, the accused was hospitalized on 18.04.2021 and was granted interim-bail on 21.04.2021. Due to interim-bail CBI could not investigate the accused. Subsequently interim-bail was cancelled in 08.12.2021 and the accused was sent to judicial custody. Later, the accused applied for default bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC which came to be rejected by the Special Judge, however, the High Court reversed the decision and released the accused on default bail. CBI preferred the SLP against the said order
Issues
- Whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 which postulates that there can be no police custody beyond 15 days of arrest is a correct law?
- Whether the CBI has the right to seek custody of the accused as it could not conduct the custodial interrogation of the accused during the initial period of police remand due to the hospitalization of accused and thereafter due to the interim bail granted to him?
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the appeal and CBI was permitted to have the police custody of the accused for a period of four days.
- It is true that in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (AIR 1992 SC 1768), this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest. In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration.
- The facts in the present case are very glaring. Despite the fact that on 16.04.2021, the learned Special Judge allowed police custody of the respondent-accused for seven days i.e., up to 22.04.2021, the respondent-accused got himself admitted in the hospital during the period of police custody, i.e., on 18.04.2021 and obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021 when his interim bail came to be cancelled by the learned Special Judge by observing that the accused has misused the liberty shown to him and during the interim bail he has not cooperated with the investigating agency. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that initial order of grant of seven days police custody attained finality. However, due to the aforesaid reasons of having got the accused himself hospitalised on 18.04.2021 and thereafter obtaining the interim bail on 21.04.2021, the CBI could not interrogate the accused in the police custody though having a valid order in its favour. Thus, the respondent-accused has successfully avoided the full operation of the order of police custody granted by the learned Special Judge.
- No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process.
Relevant Para No.
- 7.1, 8, 10