HETAL KIRITBHAI RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner original accused has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction, order quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 28.02.2005 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 11.04.2005 granting application of the prosecution for police custody of the applicant for three days.

(2.) That a criminal complaint has been filed against the original accused at Satellite Police Station I-CR No. 1145/2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 395, 294-B, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act alleging inter-alia that the complainant's Uncle Rajansinh was forceably taken away by the accused in Maruti Van by showing a knife for some money dispute. That the offence punishable under Section 395 was added subsequently in the said complaint. The petitioner preferred anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad(Rural) and by his judgment dated 03.01.2005 allowed the said application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail on certain conditions inclusive of the condition that it will be open for the prosecution / Investigating Agency to apply for remand of the applicant. That the petitioner was arrested and released on bail by the police on 19.02.2005 and thereafter on 23.02.2005 Investigating Officer submitted a remand application in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) asking for 10(ten) days remand of the petitioner and requested for police custody for 10 days of the petitioner. That the petitioner objected to the said remand application by objection application dated 24.02.2005. Considering the application as well as the objections, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) by his judgment dated 28.02.2005 partly allowed the remand application filed by the Investigating Officer and granted 3 (three) days remand to the police custody. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting remand of 3(three) days to the police custody, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 22 of 2005 in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural). Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Represented by Inspector of Police & Ors. V/s. N.M.T.Joy Immaculate reported in (2004) 5 SCC 729, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said Revision Application by holding that against the order of grant of remand, Revision Application under Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable as the said order being an interlocutory order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting three days remand, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) At the outset, it is to be noted that though in the petition there is prayer in terms of Para 15(B) to quash and set aside the complaint at Annexure A being I-C.R.No. 1145/2004, no submission has been made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the said prayer. Therefore, this Court is considering the prayer in terms of para 15(A) only with respect to remand order passed by the learned trial Court granting three days remand.