Srinagar: In a significant ruling that clarifies the boundaries between the investigating agency and the prosecution, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a Public Prosecutor has no "independent authority" to seek police remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court emphasized that any request for police custody must originate from the investigating agency itself, as they are the ones who can assess the actual necessity for further interrogation.

The case, State of J&K vs. Dhanwanter Singh and Others, dates back to an FIR involving serious charges, including murder, rioting, and violations of the Arms Act. While several accused persons were tried and eventually acquitted in 2013, three individuals (the respondents in this case) were absconding at the time.

The police had already filed a "challan" (charge-sheet) against these absconding individuals in their absence. In January 2014, these individuals finally surrendered before the trial court. Following their surrender, the Public Prosecutor moved an application seeking their police remand for custodial interrogation. The Prosecutor argued that since they were never interrogated, their custody was essential to uncover their precise role in the crime.

However, the Sessions Judge in Jammu rejected this application. The State then challenged this rejection in the High Court through a criminal revision petition filed in March 2014.

The core issue before the High Court was whether a Public Prosecutor could independently ask for police custody of an accused if the investigating officer or the police department had not formally requested it.

Justice Sanjay Parihar, presiding over the case, observed that the role of a Public Prosecutor is distinct from that of the investigating agency. Under Section 167 of the CrPC (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita or BNSS), the primary objective of police remand is to facilitate investigation.

The High Court made several critical points while dismissing the State's petition:

1. Remand must be "Investigative Necessity" The Court ruled that police custody must be rooted in investigative necessity as expressed by the police. It is not a matter of "prosecutorial discretion." If the police do not feel the need for custodial interrogation, the Prosecutor cannot impose that requirement.

2. Filing of Charge-sheet Ends Immediate Custodial Needs The Court noted that once a charge-sheet is filed, it generally implies that the investigation is complete and custodial interrogation is no longer required. If further investigation is needed, it must be formally sought by the police, not just suggested by the lawyer representing the State.

3. Merging with Final Acquittal A peculiar aspect of this case was its long delay. The revision petition was filed in 2014 but remained pending for over a decade. In the meantime, the respondents were tried and acquitted on the same evidence that had led to the acquittal of the other co-accused. The Court held that since the trial had already concluded in an acquittal, the challenge against the "remand order" had become infructuous (pointless).

Justice Parihar explicitly stated: "The Public Prosecutor, without such a request (from the investigating agency), had no independent authority to seek police remand under Section 167 CrPC."

The Court found that in this specific case, the investigating agency had neither sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody. The Prosecutor had moved the application on his own initiative, which the Court deemed legally unsustainable.

This ruling is a reminder of the "Separation of Powers" within the criminal justice system. While the Prosecutor represents the State in court, they do not "lead" the investigation. Their role is to present the evidence collected by the police. By ruling that a Prosecutor cannot independently seek remand, the Court has protected accused individuals from potentially arbitrary requests for custody that are not backed by the actual investigators on the ground.

The High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that personal liberty can only be curtailed when there is a clear, documented need from the agency responsible for the investigation. It prevents the misuse of the remand process and ensures that the legal procedure remains strictly within the bounds of the law.

With the trial already having ended in an acquittal and no urgent efforts made by the State to pursue the revision for ten years, the High Court dismissed the petition, bringing a close to a decade-old legal battle.

Case Title: State of J&K Vs Dhanwanter Singh and ors.
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar