Landmark Judgments On Police Remand And Extended Custody
1. DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) — Safeguards Against Police Custody Abuse
Facts:
The petitioner challenged rampant abuses during police remand and custody, including torture and custodial deaths.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and abuses during police remand. Key directions included:
Police must prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest.
The arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Medical examination of the accused at the time of arrest and during custody.
Right to inform a relative or friend about the arrest.
Custody records must be maintained and can be inspected by magistrates.
Key Takeaway:
This judgment laid down mandatory procedural safeguards to prevent abuse during police remand and extended custody, emphasizing human rights and protection from torture.
2. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (1979) — Right to Speedy Trial & Custody Issues
Facts:
Hundreds of undertrial prisoners were languishing in jail beyond their maximum sentence without trial.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that detention beyond the prescribed period without trial violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). It emphasized the need for speedy trials and that prolonged custody without judicial oversight is illegal.
Key Takeaway:
This case highlighted the right to speedy trial and underscored that police remand or custody must not become a tool for illegal detention or delay.
3. Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2014) — Limits on Police Remand
Facts:
The petitioner was placed under police remand multiple times without proper judicial authorization or justification.
Judgment:
The Court reiterated that police remand must be granted only when necessary for investigation, and extended police custody must be approved by a magistrate with specific reasons recorded. It emphasized that remand should be the exception, not the rule.
Key Takeaway:
This judgment reaffirmed that police remand and extended custody must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be routine or arbitrary.
4. State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai (2003) — Role of Magistrate in Police Custody
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the magistrate’s role in granting police remand without proper consideration.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that magistrates have a duty to ensure safeguards when authorizing police remand or extended custody, including checking for compliance with CrPC provisions and human rights.
Key Takeaway:
The magistrate plays a crucial protective role in controlling police custody, ensuring it is not abused.
5. Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994) — Guidelines on Arrest and Remand
Facts:
The petitioner challenged illegal arrest and extended police custody without proper reasons.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued guidelines to regulate arrest and remand:
Arrest should not be automatic or routine.
Police must inform the arrested person of grounds of arrest.
The arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Magistrates must record reasons for police or judicial custody.
Key Takeaway:
This case emphasized the right to liberty and judicial oversight on police remand, protecting against arbitrary arrests and prolonged custody.
Summary of Key Principles from These Cases:
Police remand and extended custody must be authorized by a magistrate with reasons recorded.
Arrested persons have the right to be produced before magistrates within 24 hours.
Medical examination and safeguards against torture are mandatory.
Police remand is for investigation only, and cannot be used as punishment or to delay justice.
Magistrates must act as protectors of individual liberty, ensuring remand is granted only when absolutely necessary.
Arrests and remands must follow due procedure to protect constitutional rights under Article 21.
RELATED Blog
0 comments