Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Allows CBI to Interrogate Accused in Police Custody Beyond 15 Days in Special Circumstances

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that the time limit of 15 days for police custody under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be extended in special circumstances. The Court stated that there cannot be a blanket rule that the police custody of an accused cannot exceed 15 days.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar. The case before the Court concerned an accused who had obtained interim bail during his seven-day police custody and then refused to cooperate with the investigating agency. The accused was later granted bail, which was cancelled by the trial court due to his non-cooperation with the investigation.

The Court observed that in special circumstances, where an accused frustrates the judicial process by avoiding police custody, the investigating agency may be permitted to interrogate the accused in police custody for a longer period. The Court further held that the right of custodial interrogation is an important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which cannot be frustrated by an accused.

The Court also stated that the view taken by the Court in Anupam J. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 141, that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest, requires reconsideration. The Court noted that there may be instances where a trial court erroneously refuses to grant police custody within 15 days, and the higher court reverses this decision after 15 days have passed.

The Court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to have police custody of the accused for four days, taking into account that the CBI was unable to interrogate the accused during his previous police custody due to his hospitalization and subsequent interim bail. The Court noted that the accused had successfully avoided the full operation of the order of police custody granted by the trial court, and cannot be permitted to play with the investigation or frustrate the judicial process.

Central Bureau of Investigation vs Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra

Latest Legal News