Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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