Supreme Court: Under which circumstances can an investigating officer again seek custody of the accused after the accused is released on the grounds of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest?

 It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule

for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not

adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling

the release of the arrestee. On such release, an

application for remand or custody, if required, will be

moved along with the reasons and necessity for the

same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in

writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply

thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On

receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall

decide the same expeditiously and preferably within

a week of submission thereof by adhering to the

principles of natural justice. {Para 55}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025

MIHIR RAJESH SHAH Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1288.

Dated: NOVEMBER 06, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether magistrate should take accused in custody when he appears in private complaint case?

 In another decision of the
Allahabad High Court placed into service by the learned counsel for the
respondents in the case of Sardar Jaspal Singh Vs. State (Supra), it
was observed that in cases of private complaints, Magistrate should not
take opposite parties (accused) in custody under Section 309 (2), but,
should, in all cases where the parties concerned voluntarily appear, to
resort to Section 88 of Cr.P.C and require the parties concerned only to
furnish bonds with or without securities, for appearance or future dates
and where the opposite party of a complaint case resides at along
distance as in this case, the Magistrate should exempt personal
attendance of the opposite party of the complaint case and allow them to
appear through counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.
17 In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the provisions
under Sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C., and considering the fact that the
subject proceedings which are arisen out of a private complaint where the
process and the summons has been issued to the accused, I am of the

considered opinion that the orders were not violative of any statutory
provisions of law and that the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case and hence this
petition is required to be dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.380 OF 2017

Gurram Narasimhaswami Siddidram  Vs  Dr.G. Harikishan

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 7 2019.

Print Page

How much of information received from accused U/S 27 of Evidence Act may be proved?

. Section 27 of the Act reads as under:
“27. How much of information received from accused
may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody
of a police officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
6 Cr. Revision No.404/2017
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be
proved.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Section 27 of the Act makes that part of the statement
which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole,
whether it be in the nature of confession or not (K.Chinnaswamy
Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 SC
1788, relied on).
For the application of section 27 the statement must be split
into its components and to separate the admissible portion and
only those components or portions which were the immediate
cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest
which must be excluded and rejected. (see: Mohd. Inayatullah
Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483).
Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial
statements in the ordinary course of events. In Indian Law, there
is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have
been extracted through compulsion (see: Smt. Selvi Vs. State of
Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974).
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Criminal Revision No.404 of 2017

Gyanchand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Dated:18/06/2018

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that prejudice was caused to accused if there is Inordinate Delay in completion of Investigation?

 It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions of this Court
articulating the mandate of the Constitution that there is
implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision
and retrial. To determine whether undue delay has occurred,
one must have regard to nature of offence, number of accused
and witnesses, workload of the court and the investigating
agency, systemic delays. Inordinate delay may be taken as
presumptive proof of prejudice particularly when accused is in
custody so that prosecution does not become persecution.
Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors.
Though it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any
mandatory outer time limit and the court may only examine
effect of delay in every individual case on the anvil of Article 21
of the Constitution, there is certainly a need for in-house
mechanism to ensure that there is no undue delay in
completing investigation.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. NO.267 OF 2017 IN SLP (CRL.) NO.657 OF 2017

DILAWAR Vs The State of Haryana & Anr

Dated:May 01, 2018.

Print Page

Supreme court Guidelines for trial court if the accused is not co-operating in the examination of witnesses

If any court finds that the day-to-day examination of witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be complied with due to the non-cooperation of the Accused or his counsel the court can adopt any of the measures indicated in the Sub-section i.e. remanding the Accused to custody or imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments (the cost must be commensurate with the loss suffered by the witnesses, including the expenses to attend the court). Another option is, when the Accused is absent and the witness is present to be examined, the court can cancel his bail, if he is on bail (unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present even in his absence provided the Accused gives an undertaking in writing that he would not dispute his identity as the particular Accused in the case).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 8994-8995 of 2015) 

Decided On: 28.11.2017

Doongar Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by magistrate if accused surrenders before him

 The immediate next question is, after the surrender of the accused, how he has to be dealt with under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously, this provision deals with the power of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case and also a Magistrate who has no jurisdiction either to try the case or to commit it for trial. A close reading of the first part of sub-section (2) of Section 167 would make it clear that the Magistrate before whom the accused surrenders, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole. 

17- The latter part of sub-section (2) of Section 167 states that if the Magistrate who has no jurisdiction to try the case or to commit it for trial considers that his further detention is unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to the Magistrate having such jurisdiction. Here, the expression "unnecessary" needs to be emphasised. This expression employed in sub-section (2) of Section 167 would make it further clear that after the surrender of the accused, the Magistrate concerned, who has no jurisdiction to try the case or to commit it for trial, has to consider whether his further detention is necessary or unnecessary. If the said Magistrate finds that the detention of the accused is unnecessary, then as per the second part of sub-section (2) of Section 167, the Magistrate shall only order the accused to be forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction without authorizing the further detention of the accused to any custody. But, as per the first part of sub-section (2) of Section 167, if the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and if he finds that detention of the accused is necessary, then, he has to authorise the further detention of the accused provided the investigation is pending. 

18- The next question is, as to how the Magistrate could decide whether the further detention of the accused is necessary or unnecessary. In this regard, we may say that this task does not involve any adjudication. It is only the prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned that matters. But, such prima facie satisfaction cannot be arrived at in vacuum. In order to arrive at such a satisfaction, the Magistrate needs some materials and from the materials or substances placed before him, he is required to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the further detention of the accused who has surrendered before him is necessary or unnecessary. It may be argued that at that time the Magistrate may not have any material to authorise such detention. Though there is some force in the said apprehension, it cannot be simply said that it is correct. To illustrate, in the event, the accused, while surrendering before the court, produces a copy of the FIR or any other document relating to the case and the identity of the person concerned is also not in doubt, he may get a prima facie satisfaction that his further detention is necessary. Similarly, as soon as the surrender of the accused, the investigating officer or any other police officer acting on his instructions may inform the Magistrate that the person who has surrendered before the court is the one who was involved in the case and that may be suffice for him to get the satisfaction that his further detention is necessary. These situations are only illustrative and not exhaustive. On the contrary, if no material at all is available for the Magistrate to get the satisfaction that the further detention of the person who has surrendered before him is necessary, then, he has no option but to record that his further detention is unnecessary and so, he has to simply forward him to the jurisdictional Magistrate who has jurisdiction either to try or to commit the case for trial to the court of session. 

19- If the further detention of the accused is not authorised by the Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try or to commit the case for trial on the surrender of the accused, then, the period of detention for the purpose of police custody or for the purpose of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall not start running from the date of surrender as the same shall start running from the date of remand order to be passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. 

20- During the course of hearing, a doubt was raised that the Magistrate who has no jurisdiction over the case may find it practically difficult in forwarding the accused to the jurisdictional Magistrate because he may not know as to who the jurisdictional Magistrate is. The solution to this doubt is very simple. Under Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall have jurisdiction through out the District and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have jurisdiction throughout the City. Therefore, the Magistrate before whom the accused has surrendered may forward the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the District wherein the case is under investigation or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, in turn, will forward him to the jurisdictional Magistrate in the District. 

21- It is true that when an accused surrenders before a Magistrate who has no jurisdiction, the investigating officer may not know that the accused had surrendered. As a result, by the time when he seeks police custody, the fifteen days initial period of remand may be over making it difficult for him to get police custody. In order to obviate this practical difficulty, we are of the view that as soon as accepting the surrender of the accused, the learned Magistrate shall forward an intimation to the Superintendent of Police of his District or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, and the said Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police shall immediately pass the information to the Superintendent of the other District within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place and the said Superintendent of Police shall, in turn, immediately forward this information to the investigating officer of the case. Similarly, the learned Magistrate before whom the accused has surrendered shall send an intimation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the District in which the crime had taken place. 

22- It was also argued that when the Magistrate finds that the further detention of the accused is unnecessary and if he simply forwards him to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case, it may be difficult for him to get police escort. But, we do not think that the Magistrate may have such a difficulty because on his direction, the Superintendent of Police of the said District shall arrange for police escort to take the accused from the Magistrate's court to the Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded. 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

SERVICE BENCH No. - 258 of 1996 

 S.C.Shukla  v  State Of U.P. 

Print Page

Whether accused can be remanded in police custody prior to registration of offence?

 As per the provisions quoted above, custody of the accused can be after a report. In the instant case, accused petitioner seems to have remained in custody for almost six days even prior to the report. After his arrest on 11.3.2016, he was produced for taking remand by the police on 12.3.2016 before the learned Magistrate. Initially, remand was given for two days followed by other order of remand for 14 days on 14.3.2016. The arrest as well as initial order of remand were without registration of an FIR. In our opinion, initial two orders for remand prior to registration of FIR are hit by section 167 Cr.P.C.. The first question is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

DB Civil Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) Nos. 120 and 121/2016

Decided On: 26.05.2016

 Rahul Pareek  Vs.  State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.N. Bhandari and J.K. Ranka, JJ.

Citation: 2017 CRLJ 721 Raj

Print Page

Guidelines of Bombay high court regarding custodial interrogation of accused

 We are of the view that this can be achieved if following

guidelines are followed:
(i) In respect of petty offences, such as cases of chain
snatching under Section 379, 380 of I.P.C. and
similar offences; or where punishment is less than
three years; or where offender has been arrested for
the first time, he may not be interrogated after 10.00
p. m., and only in exceptional circumstances,
interrogation may be undertaken after 10.00 p.m.
(ii) Even in respect of habitual offenders of the same
category, viz. 379, 380 I.P.C., etc. also, as far as
possible, custodial interrogation at night may not be
undertaken.
(iii) Legal aid, apart from being provided to the police
station, shall be provided when remand applications
are filed and the learned Magistrate should ask the
accused whether he requires some legal aid at that
stage and if he shows his inclination of being given
legal aid, the State Government should provide legal
aid and pay adequate fees to such Legal Aid lawyers.
(iv) Custodial interrogation may also be monitored by a
senior police officer from time to time, so that if
there are excessive interrogations, he can stop such
interrogations, at right time. However, the
suggestions given by the Petitioner may be taken

into consideration by the Committee, to be
constituted by the Director General of Police, since
they are experts in the fields and aware of the pros
and cons of this field, they shall make proper
suggestions and frame guidelines.
(v) The Committee shall also be constituted for the
purpose of installation of CCTV cameras and
surveillance system.
(vi) The State shall submit a list of custodial deaths,
which have taken place every month.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 2110 OF 2014

Leonard Xavier Valdaris  Vs.  Officer-in-Charge, Wadala Railway Police Station 


 CORAM : V. M. KANADE, &
 Dr. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
 DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2015

Print Page

Whether police can seek Custody of Accused who are arrested after filing of Charge Sheet?

 In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our
opinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh

Dalmia (supra) in upholding refusal of remand in police
custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood
in custody after his arrest under Section 309 CrPC. We have
already noted above the principle of law laid down by the three
judge bench of this Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar (supra) that police remand can be sought under
Section 167(2) CrPC in respect of an accused arrested at the
stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by
the investigating agency. This Court has further clarified in
said case that expression ‘accused if in custody’ in Section
309(2) CrPC does not include the accused who is arrested on
further investigation before supplementary charge sheet is
filed.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1081 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2015)

Central Bureau of Investigation V Rathin Dandapat and others 

Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Dated;August 21, 2015.

Citation: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 743

Print Page

Whether court can rely on the recovery of an article by police at the instance of accused even if he was not in arrest?

It is a well settled position in law that for the purpose of arrest of the accused though, normally, arrest panchanama is made at the subsequent time, the moment the accused is in control and custody of the police, he is deemed to be arrested. Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:-

"46. Arrest how made.- (1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:

[Provided that where a woman is to be

arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.]

(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.

(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.

[(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the woman police officer shall, by making a written report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made.]

Keeping in view the aforesaid provision and taking into consideration the statements of the panch witness, it can be seen that the accused were in the custody of the police from 5.30 A.M. in the morning of 3/11/2011 and, therefore, though, formally, the arrest panchanama was made at 11.30 A.M., they were in the custody of the police since morning and the Investigating Officer has given an explanation by stating that the recovery was made at the instance of the accused earliest in order to ensure that the said articles are not removed by any one. The said explanation is a plausible explanation and the Investigating Officer clearly disclosed his presence of mind in immediately taking the accused to the

place where they had hidden the articles belonging to the deceased. The said submission, therefor, is without any merit and cannot be accepted.

Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Purushottam Dashrath Borate  on 25 September, 2012

Bench: V.M. Kanade, P. D. Kode

Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2012

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page