THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.988-989     OF 2010  (@S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.2967-2968 of 2010)

Devender Kumar & Anr. etc. .. Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana & Ors. etc. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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, 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.   

3. It  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,  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  the  said  application  was  contrary  to  the  

provisions of Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. which provide  

that an application for police 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  

2

produced  on  22nd October,  2008.   Subsequently,  

however,  the  position  was  rectified  and  as  

indicated hereinabove, an application was 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, 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  Haryana  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 dated 19th March, 2010, the High  

3

Court  allowed  the  Criminal  Misc.  Petitions  and  

quashed the orders dated 8.10.2008 and 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 19.3.2010 passed by the High 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  impugned  in  these  

proceedings,  directing  cancellation  of  bail  

granted to the Appellants and further allowing  the  

application 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  

4

established principles relating to cancellation of  

bail, but also violated the provisions of Section  

167(1) Cr.P.C.  Mr. Luthra contended that 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  

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 High Court  

allowed the prayer for police remand simply upon  

observing that the Appellant No.1 made disclosures  

during investigation that the dowry articles which  

5

were given to him were lying in his house at Delhi  

which could be identified and recovered.  A further  

contention was raised by Mr. Luthra that 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  

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 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  

6

Additional Advocate General appearing for the State  

of Haryana.

7. As  to  the  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 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.P.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  of  remand,  the  Magistrate  

could  direct  police  custody  other  than  judicial  

custody, but if the investigation was not completed  

within  the  first  15  days’  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  

7

production before the magistrate and not otherwise,  

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 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 had been granted to the Appellants by the  

learned Magistrate, Palwal, on 10th October, 2008,  

and  as  indicated  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 cancellation of the orders  

granting  bail  and  directing  the  arrest  of  the  

8

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.

10. With regard to the second point which was urged  

by Mr. Luthra, the same was considered in depth and  

was settled in the case of  Anupam J. Kulkarni’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 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 after arrest.  The said point has also  

been  considered  and  decided  in  the  above  case.  

Within the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate  

9

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  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.

______________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

______________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 05.05.2010

10