Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Feb 6: High Court in a significant judgement ruled that a public prosecutor has no independent authority to seek police remand of an accused unless the investigation agency requests for the same.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, dismissed a criminal revision filed by the State challenging therein an order passed by the trial court under which application of prosecution seeking police remand of accused persons was sought, the trial court however rejected the application.
The court while dismissing the plea of state-prosecution said that once a charge-sheet is filed, it implicitly conveys that custodial interrogation is no longer required unless further investigation is formally sought.
The case arose out of an FIR registered for offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and offences under the Arms Act. The challan after completion of investigation was presented before the trial court against the accused-person.
Some of the accused persons were absconding at the relevant time of trial and were proceeded against under Section 512 CrPC, leading to the filing of the challan against them in absentia. The trial against the available accused culminated in a judgment of acquittal in August 2013, which was later challenged by the State through an acquittal appeal pending before the High Court.
Subsequently, the absconding accused surrendered before the trial court in January 2014, following which the prosecution sought their police remand for custodial interrogation, claiming that further investigation was required to ascertain their specific role.
Appearing for the State, Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General, contended that since the respondents had not been arrested or interrogated earlier, their custodial interrogation was essential for filing a supplementary challan and for unearthing their precise involvement in the offence.
Justice Parihar carefully examined the procedural history and the record of the case and noted that the revision petition itself was filed in March 2014 and remained pending for over a decade without any urgency being shown by the State.
The Court observed that after the surrender of the absconded accused, they were formally charged and had pleaded not guilty and they opted to adopt the evidence already recorded in the case. The Public Prosecutor sought police custody, which was declined by the trial court, and thereafter, on the very same evidence on which the co-accused had already been acquitted, the respondents too were acquitted.
In this backdrop, the Court held that the impugned order refusing police remand had merged into the final judgment of acquittal, rendering the criminal revision infructuous.
A significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s clear pronouncement on the limited role of the Public Prosecutor in seeking police remand. The Court found, on facts, that the investigating agency had neither sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody of the respondents.
The Court emphasized that a request for police custody must originate from the investigating agency, which alone can assess investigative necessity. Taking note of the prolonged pendency of the revision, the Court observed that despite issuance of process, the respondent-accused were never effectively served and no effort was made for early disposal for more than ten years, further weakening the State’s case.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
