Judicial Interpretation Of Police Remand And Extended Custody

24 Sep 2025 --
0 Comments

1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Supreme Court of India

Issue: Safeguards during police custody and remand
Facts:
This case arose from custodial deaths and torture in police custody. The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to protect the rights of arrested persons, especially during police remand.

Judicial Interpretation:
The Court emphasized that police remand should only be granted when necessary for investigation, and custodial interrogation should not lead to torture or violation of human rights. It mandated procedures such as informing a magistrate immediately, police diary entries, presence of a lawyer, and medical examination.

Outcome:
Police remand must be authorized by magistrates and strictly monitored. Extended custody is not a right but a tool to be used sparingly and under judicial oversight.

Key Takeaway:
Police remand and extended custody are exceptions to the right of personal liberty, with strict safeguards to prevent abuse.

2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

Issue: Unlawful detention and misuse of police remand power
Facts:
Many undertrial prisoners were detained for prolonged periods without trial or proper police remand, leading to severe injustice.

Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court recognized the right to a speedy trial and declared prolonged police remand without justification unconstitutional. It highlighted that remand is temporary and must be justified by necessity.

Outcome:
The Court ordered the release of undertrials unlawfully held without valid remand and directed courts to review remand orders diligently.

Key Takeaway:
Police remand cannot be arbitrarily extended; courts must ensure remand is based on legitimate investigative needs.

3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)

Issue: Protection against arbitrary arrest and custodial remand
Facts:
The petitioner was arrested without proper grounds and kept in police custody for interrogation.

Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court ruled that arrest and police remand cannot be used as tools of harassment. It laid down that courts must record reasons when authorizing remand and ensure the person’s rights are protected.

Outcome:
The Court introduced a mandatory requirement that remand orders specify reasons and duration. Arbitrary or unjustified remand is illegal.

Key Takeaway:
Police remand must be reasonable, justified, and transparent.

4. Ravi Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2004)

Issue: Extension of police custody beyond stipulated period
Facts:
The accused was kept in police custody beyond the maximum allowed period without judicial authorization.

Judicial Interpretation:
The Bombay High Court held that any extension of police remand beyond statutory limits without proper judicial sanction is illegal and violative of fundamental rights.

Outcome:
Remand can only be extended with judicial approval and when the investigation genuinely requires further interrogation.

Key Takeaway:
Extended custody beyond lawful limits without magistrate’s approval is unlawful.

5. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)

Issue: Abuse of power in obtaining police remand for investigation
Facts:
The police sought remand to harass the accused and extract confessions.

Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court held that police remand should not be a means to obtain confessions by coercion or to harass the accused. It emphasized that remand should be used only for legitimate investigation purposes.

Outcome:
The Court restricted police remand to genuine investigative needs, warning against misuse.

Key Takeaway:
Police remand is a limited power to aid investigation, not a tool for coercion.