HARENDRA VALLABHDAS KANABAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the petitioner who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109, 120-B, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, prays for quashing of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (FC) at Jam-Khambhalia and confirmed after some modification in revision, remanding him to police custody for a period of 3 days.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx.

(3.) Mr. A. D. Shah, the learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the powers to remand in police custody should not be exercised as a matter of course, for liberty of the accused cannot be undermined. True the law views with disfavour the detention in police custody, and so the powers to remand to police custody are not be exercised mechanically as a matter of patently routine order. The Magistrate has to exercise the powers judiciously on the material placed before him. If he finds on perusal of the materials before him that there is a just ground to remand he may remand the accused to police custody for a period not exceeding 15 days. For effective and thorough investigation or for going to the root of the case or to have a clue or tracing out property or person or guarding the interest of the prosecution if police remand is found necessary, the Magistrate may grant remand rather than throttling the investigation on the ground of accused's liberty because police investigation is the bedrock of criminal trial. Any infirmity or defect if left out in its chain, it may result in breakdown of prosecution case which may result in acquittal. The crimes are, by the march of; science, committed in secrecy or resorting to ultra modern devices or adroitness and using up-to-the minute modern weapons. The police has to extract truth from half-truth or suppressed or diversed or tortuous; or distorted versions remaining extra-cautious. It cannot prefer to keep any possibility out of consideration keeping in mind the saying: 'rogues outwit even the wisest men'. It has got to adopt diverse methods within law and delve into the search of any possible hidden or implied cable or intrigue for successful completion of investigation. In short investigation is tardy and tedious process. At the same time the Magistrate: should also try to know that the police's request for remand is honest and not for oblique motive or for harassing the accused, or without any just cause or for saving its skin. The Magistrate has there fore to strike the balance between the police's requirement and liberty of the accused. His order should not prejudice either the investigation or the libety of the accused, and should not turn out to be the largeness to either. This Court has, in the case of Siyaram Gopichand Gupta & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 31 (2) GLR 905 made the law clear laying down that while granting the remand, necessity of maintaining the balance between personal liberty and the need to have thorough investigation and collection of evidence cannot be ignored. Obtaining necessary information for thorough investigation from the accused otherwise than torture is a universally recognised principle. The question of remand to the police is required to be decided on its peculiar facts of each case. When remand of the accused is found to be necessary for just investigation into the offence or thorough investigation into the offence, Court has to grant the remand rather than throttling the investigation and leaning towards the accused on the ground of personal liberty.