TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on April 21, 1981 in FIR 395 of April 25, 1980 registered in the P.S. Kingsway Camp under Sec. 302/34/120B, I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, for murder of Nirankari Chief Baba Gurbachan Singh in Delhi, which is under investigation by the C.B.I. He was liable to arrest under Sec. 41(1)(c), Cr.P.C. by any police officer.

(2.) It so happened that in order to deal with the anti -smoking agitation, a notification was issued on January 6, 1981 by the District Magistrate, Amritsar for surrender of arms. The petitioner was one of those who did not comply. He was arrested on June 17, 1981 when it was discovered that he was a man wanted by the police of Delhi as aforesaid. He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on June 18, 1981, who transferred him to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as required by R. 26.20 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He was then produced before him on June 19, 1981. On the same day, the Investigating Officer applied to the said Magistrate that the petitioner be remanded to judicial custody for 14 days till July 2, 1981 for purpose of holding a test identification in jail. The Chief Magistrate agreed and remanded him to judicial custody. He further directed a Metropolitan Magistrate to hold the test identification parade on June 27, 1981. But the accused refused to participate in the identification parade. June 28, 1981 was a Sunday. On June 29, 1981 the police applied for custody of the petitioner for ten days in order to enable them to recover the car and the arms involved in the murder. They contended that the petitioner has not been in the custody of the CBI for a single day and they were even entitled to 15 days remand in their custody.

(3.) The accused protested and on the basis of my judgment reported in Gian Singh v/s. State,, (1981) 19 DLT 168 :, 1981 Cri LJ 7, contended that once the accused is remanded to judicial custody, he cannot be sent back again to police custody in connection with, or in continuation of, the same investigation. What was permissible after his remand to judicial custody was that the accused could, subject to his right to silence, be questioned by the police with the permission of the Magistrate in any place and manner which do not amount to custody in the police. Referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v/s. : 1980CriLJ1125 , I had further made it clear that police custody commences when a police officer arrests a person by actually touching or confining his body or when the accused submits to the custody by word or action or offers to give information leading to discovery. The learned Magistrate distinguished my decision by stating that the precise question before me in Gian Singh (supra) was whether the accused could be interrogated by the police while in judicial custody. And the aforesaid observations did not apply to the question before him. I do not consider that any such distinction could be made. He was further of the view that the accused has not so far been remanded to police custody even once and Therefore it is not a case of sending him back of police custody after a stint in judicial custody. Earlier, the accused was remanded to judicial custody for a limited purpose; at that time neither the diaries were scrutinised, nor was the culpability of the accused deeply examined with a view to consider whether any remand to police custody was called for or not or any recovery could be made at the instance of the accused or not. The question of police remand on merits has arisen for the first time, He rejected the contention of the accused.