The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by four police officers challenging their remand to judicial custody in connection with the custodial death of a 26-year-old temple guard, Ajith Kumar, in Manamadurai. Justice P Murugan upheld the remand order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within nine months.
The petitioners, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Inspector of Police, and two officers below the rank of Sub Inspector, were named in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The investigation was transferred to the CBI following allegations that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while in custody over a false case. After the trial court framed charges and examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it remanded the officers to judicial custody.
The petitioners contended that the remand order was erroneous because they were not in custody at the time it was passed. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satendra Kumar Antil to argue that a separate bail application was not mandatory and that the remand, predicated on the absence of such an application, was contrary to law. It was further submitted that the trial court's finding regarding the possibility of witness tampering was unsustainable, as no prosecution witness had yet deposed to the specific roles of the petitioners. They also highlighted that the investigating agency did not arrest them during the investigation, indicating no requirement for custodial interrogation, and that no subsequent developments justified their detention.
The court rejected these submissions. It held that the petitioners did not challenge the power of the trial judge to remand them to judicial custody. Consequently, the appropriate legal remedy was to approach the appropriate forum for bail rather than seeking to set aside the remand order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
What Is The Correct Remedy Against A Remand Order When Judicial Power Is Not Challenged?
When the accused do not dispute the court's power to remand them to judicial custody, they cannot invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to set aside the remand order. The proper recourse is to file a bail application before the competent court.
Justice P Murugan observed that the mere challenging of a remand order under Section 528 BNSS, without approaching the bail jurisdiction, is not the correct legal course. Once a reasoned remand order is passed, the accused must work out their remedy before the appropriate forum for bail. The court emphasised that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for the regular bail remedy.
While dismissing the petitions, the court took note of the voluminous nature of the prosecution evidence, comprising 146 witnesses, 123 documents, and 49 articles. To ensure expeditious disposal, the court directed the trial court to complete the trial within nine months from the date of receipt of the order. All accused were directed to cooperate with the trial court. The order further stipulated that if the accused adopt any delaying tactics, the trial court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders based on the circumstances prevailing during the examination of witnesses.
Comparison Of Remand Challenge And Bail Jurisdiction
Aspect | Remand Challenge (Petitioners' Approach) | Bail Jurisdiction (Court's Directed Remedy) |
|---|---|---|
Legal Basis | Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS | Statutory bail provisions under BNSS |
Prerequisite | Challenging validity of remand order itself | Acceptance of court's power to remand |
Outcome Sought | Setting aside remand order | Release on bail pending trial |
Court's View | Incorrect remedy where power to remand is undisputed | Appropriate and statutorily prescribed forum |
The judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers under the new criminal procedure code cannot be invoked to circumvent the established bail jurisprudence when the legality of the remand order itself is not under challenge. The nine-month deadline underscores the judiciary's focus on timely resolution in custodial death cases involving law enforcement personnel.