Remand And Police Custody Judicial Scrutiny
🧾 1. Introduction
When a person is arrested and investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the police cannot detain that person further without permission from a Magistrate.
This procedure is known as remand — the process through which custody (either police or judicial) of an accused is extended by a court.
Remand ensures judicial scrutiny of police actions and prevents arbitrary detention in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
⚖️ 2. Meaning and Types of Custody
(a) Police Custody
The accused remains under control of police officers for the purpose of interrogation and investigation.
Maximum period: 15 days in total (as per Section 167(2) CrPC).
Police can seek police custody only during the first 15 days after arrest.
(b) Judicial Custody
The accused is sent to jail (judicial lock-up) and is under the custody of the Magistrate.
The police cannot interrogate the accused without permission of the court.
The total detention (including both police and judicial custody) cannot exceed 60 days (for offences punishable up to 10 years) or 90 days (for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ≥10 years).
📜 3. Relevant Provisions under CrPC
| Section | Provision | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Section 57 | No detention beyond 24 hours | Accused must be produced before Magistrate within 24 hours. |
| Section 167(1) | Procedure when investigation not completed in 24 hours | Police officer forwards accused and case diary to Magistrate. |
| Section 167(2) | Magistrate’s power to grant remand | Maximum police custody of 15 days; thereafter judicial custody. |
| Proviso to Section 167(2) | Default bail | If charge sheet not filed within 60/90 days, accused entitled to bail. |
| Section 309(2) | Remand during trial | Magistrate may remand accused after cognizance is taken, if necessary. |
⚖️ 4. Judicial Scrutiny in Remand Process
Judicial scrutiny is the constitutional safeguard that ensures:
Arrest and remand are based on genuine need, not as tools of harassment.
Magistrates must apply independent judicial mind before granting custody.
The accused’s fundamental rights under Article 21 and 22(1) are not violated.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Magistrates are not rubber stamps for police requests — they must ensure due process, necessity, and proportionality.
🧑⚖️ 5. Landmark Case Laws
(1) C.B.I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141
Facts:
Anupam Kulkarni, a bank officer, was arrested for embezzlement. Police sought police custody after 15 days of arrest. The issue:
Can police custody be granted after 15 days from the date of initial arrest?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
“Police custody cannot be granted after the expiry of the first 15 days from the date of arrest.”
After that period, only judicial custody can be continued, even if the investigation is still ongoing.
Significance:
This case set the outer limit of police custody to 15 days, ensuring that police do not misuse remand to keep accused in continuous interrogation.
(2) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (1997) 9 SCC 685
Facts:
CBI arrested certain accused related to the 1993 Bombay blasts and sought police custody after the accused were already in judicial custody.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that police custody after judicial custody is permissible, but only if the accused is formally arrested in connection with a new or different offence, and the total police custody does not exceed 15 days from first arrest in that specific case.
Significance:
Clarified that police custody can be sought again only for a different case or offence, not the same one. Prevented abuse of custody through “chain arrests”.
(3) State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharampal (1982) 1 SCC 508
Facts:
The accused was arrested in connection with a murder case. Police custody was sought to further investigate the conspiracy and recover the weapon.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind before authorizing police custody and ensure that such custody is necessary for investigation purposes.
Custody cannot be granted mechanically.
Significance:
Established that remand is a judicial function, not administrative.
Magistrates must record reasons in writing for granting police custody.
(4) Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 314
Facts:
In this case, the issue was whether a Magistrate could authorize police remand after cognizance of the offence had been taken by a higher court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that once a higher court (like Sessions Court) takes cognizance, the Magistrate loses power to grant remand.
Only the court that has cognizance of the case can extend custody.
Significance:
Clarified the jurisdictional limitation of Magistrates in granting remand and reinforced judicial discipline in custody orders.
(5) Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623
Facts:
The accused was arrested and produced before the Magistrate, who remanded him without properly examining the legality of arrest and grounds for custody.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reiterated that Magistrates must independently verify:
Whether the arrest was legal and justified.
Whether police custody is truly required for investigation.
Whether the accused’s rights (like access to lawyer, medical exam, etc.) are protected.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the duty of Magistrates to exercise independent judicial scrutiny at every remand hearing — ensuring that liberty is curtailed only by due process.
🧩 6. Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case | Essence |
|---|---|---|
| Police custody limited to 15 days | Anupam J. Kulkarni Case | No police custody after 15 days of arrest |
| Fresh custody allowed only for new offence | Dawood Ibrahim Case | Chain custody for same offence impermissible |
| Magistrate must apply judicial mind | Dharampal Case | Remand is a judicial, not mechanical, act |
| Magistrate loses power after cognizance by higher court | Manubhai Patel Case | Jurisdictional limits clarified |
| Judicial scrutiny of legality of arrest | Sundeep Kumar Bafna Case | Magistrate must ensure arrest and custody are lawful |
🏛️ 7. Conclusion
The remand and custody system under the CrPC strikes a balance between:
The needs of investigation, and
The fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.
While the police have legitimate powers to seek custody for investigation, judicial scrutiny is the constitutional safeguard to prevent arbitrary or prolonged detention.
The Supreme Court, through its jurisprudence, has made it clear that:
Police custody is an exception, not the rule.
Judicial custody and oversight are essential safeguards.
Magistrates must act as protectors of liberty, not mere signatories of police requests.
Thus, remand proceedings are a critical checkpoint where the judiciary ensures that “procedure established by law” remains fair, just, and reasonable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments