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 … Appellant Versus Rathin Dandapat and others … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1082 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015) Central Bureau of Investigation … Appellant Versus Chandi Karan … Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2015) Central Bureau of Investigation … Appellant Versus Anuj Pandey … Respondent
Page 2 of 13 J U D G M E N T Prafulla C. Pant, J. A common question of law is involved in these three appeals as to whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. The instant case from which these appeals have arisen, relates to killing of nine persons and injuring large number of villagers of Village Netai of District Paschim Medinipore in West Bengal. It is alleged that the respondents in the present appeals and other accused, on 07.01.2011, after forming an unlawful assembly in the rooftop of respondent No. 1, Rathin Dandapat, committed the crime. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at Police Station Lalgarh in respect of
Page 3 of 13 offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 326, 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and also in respect of offences punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The investigation of the case was initially done by regular police, but later transferred to Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the State. Vide order dated 18.2.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Writ Petition Nos. 1170(W) of 2011, 1172(W) of 2011 and 1181(W) of 2011, the investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”), the appellant before us. 4. During investigation accused, namely Abhani Bhusan Singha, Subhendu Mondal, Aswani Chalak, Nabagopal Sanki, Pintu Roy, Gandib Ban Roy, Lob Duley, Banamali Duley, Niranjan Kotal, Rupchand Ahir, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy were arrested. On completion of investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet dated 4.4.2011 against 21 accused, including the arrested ones and the absconders. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that further investigation of the case was kept open for the purposes of collection of further
Page 4 of 13 evidence and the arrest of the absconders. It was also mentioned that further collected evidence during investigation would be forwarded by filing supplementary charge sheet. 5. The respondents, namely, Rathin Dandapat, Md. Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri, Tapan Dey (all respondents in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2015), Chandi Karan (respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015), Anuj Pandey (respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2011), and one Kanai Dey, were declared proclaimed offenders. Meanwhile, the trial proceeded and, after providing necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, on 9.8.2011, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Paschim Medinipore. The Court of Sessions on 10.12.2011 framed charge against accused Abhani Bhusan Singha, Subhendu Mondal, Aswani Chalak, Nabagopal Sanki, Pintu Roy, Gandib Ban Roy, Lob Duley, Banamali Duley, Niranjan
Page 5 of 13 Kotal, Rupchand Ahir, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy. The last two accused, namely, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy were later declared juveniles and their cases were sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Paschim Medinipore. The present case, as against said two juveniles, is said to be lying stayed vide order dated 8.9.2014, passed by this Court in S.L.P. No. 5699 of 2014. In respect of other accused against whom charge was framed, trial further proceeded and ten Prosecution Witnesses were examined. However, their cross-examination was deferred at the instance of arrested accused persons, other than the juveniles. 6. Out of eight proclaimed offenders, five, namely, Rathin Dandapat, Md. Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri and Tapan Dey, were arrested on 29.4.2014, whereafter on 30.4.2014 the CBI sought their remand in police custody. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram rejected the prayer of the CBI, aggrieved by which said investigating agency submitted Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2014) before the Calcutta High Court. Absconder-accused Chandi
Page 6 of 13 Karan was arrested on 9.5.2014 by CID of the State, which informed the CBI about his arrest and meanwhile vacation Magistrate remanded judicial custody of said accused up to 12.5.2014. The CBI on 12.5.2014 sought remand in police custody in respect of Chandi Karan, but the same was also rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, against which Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1641 of 2014) was filed before the High Court. As to the absconder-accused Anuj Pandey too, CID, West Bengal, on 7.5.2014 informed the CBI about his arrest from Chandrapura in Jharkhand, and he was produced on 8.5.2014 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram where CBI sought remand in police custody but the same was also refused. Aggrieved by said order dated 8.5.2014, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1640 of 2014) was filed before the High Court. All the three Criminal Revisions were disposed of by the High Court by separate orders of the same date, i.e., 15.10.2014, against which these criminal appeals are filed through special leave.
Page 7 of 13 7. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the relevant provisions of law. 8. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC, which empowers a Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused in the custody of police, reads as under: - “ Provided that, - (a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;
Page 8 of 13 (b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police.” 9. Sub-section (8) of Section 173, under which investigating agency has power to further investigate the matter in which the report/charge sheet has already been filed, is reproduced hereunder: - “ (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”
Page 9 of 13 10. Relevant provision of sub-section (2) of Section 309 CrPC, empowering remand of an accused, provides as under: - “ (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: xxx xxx xxx Explanation 1 . – If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.” 11. In State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and others 1 , a three judge bench of this Court has laid down the law on the issue relating to grant of police custody of a person arrested during further investigation. In paragraph 11 of said case, this Court has held as follows: - “ 11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to in the first proviso to the above sub-section are different from detention in custody under Section 167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be to judicial custody, 1 (2000) 10 SCC 438
Page 10 of 13 detention under the latter relates to the stage of investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since, however, even after cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to investigate into it further, which can be exercised only in accordance with Chapter XII, we see no reason whatsoever why the provisions of Section 167 thereof would not apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in course of such investigation. If Section 309(2) is to be interpreted — as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Ahmed Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra [1994 Cri LJ 1854 (Bom)], — to mean that after the Court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot exercise its power of detention in police custody under Section 167 of the Code, the Investigating Agency would be deprived of an opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further investigation, even if it can on production of sufficient materials, convince the Court that his detention in its (police) custody was essential for that purpose. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the words “accused if in custody” appearing in Section 309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167.”
Page 11 of 13 12. The case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI 2 , which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. In said case, the accused/absconder (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI police custody was granted on 14.2.2006 till 24.2.2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was granted till 8.3.2006. Said accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the accused sought statutory bail under sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC as no charge sheet was filed against him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest. The Magistrate rejected the application for statutory bail on the ground that it was a case of further investigation after filing of the charge sheet, and the remand of the accused to judicial custody was under Section 309 CrPC, after police remand came to an end, granted under Section 167(2) CrPC. The High Court upheld said order and this Court also affirmed the view taken by the High Court. 13. In view of the above facts, in the present case, in our opinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of Dinesh 2 (2007) 8 SCC 770
Page 12 of 13 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. 14. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the refusal of police remand in the present case is against the settled principle of law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court, affirming the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders
Page 13 of 13 passed by the High Court and the orders passed by the Magistrate, declining the police remand, are set aside. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders on the applications made by the appellant before it relating to granting of police remand of the respondents in accordance with law. 15. All the three appeals stand allowed. ……………………………… J. [Dipak Misra] ……………………………… J. [Prafulla C. Pant] New Delhi; August 21, 2015.
à\227 Page 1 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 ... Appellant Versus Rathin Dandapat and others ... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1082 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015) Central Bureau of Investigation ... Appellant Versus Chandi Karan ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2015) Central Bureau of Investigation ... Appellant Versus Anuj Pandey ... RespondentSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod LakhinaDate: 2015.08.2116:46:47 ISTReason: Page 2 JUDGMENTPrafulla C. Pant, J. A common question of law is involved in these three appealsas to whether no remand in police custody can be given to theinvestigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who isarrested only after filing of the charge sheet.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe papers on record.
3. The instant case from which these appeals have arisen,relates to killing of nine persons and injuring large number ofvillagers of Village Netai of District Paschim Medinipore in WestBengal. It is alleged that the respondents in the present appealsand other accused, on 07.01.2011, after forming an unlawfulassembly in the rooftop of respondent No. 1, Rathin Dandapat,committed the crime. First Information Report was lodged on thesame day at Police Station Lalgarh in respect of offencespunishable under Sections 148, 149, 326, 307, 302 of IndianPenal Code (IPC), and also in respect of offences punishableunder Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The investigation of the casewas initially done by regular police, but later transferred to Page 3Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the State. Vide orderdated 18.2.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta in Writ Petition Nos. 1170(W) of 2011, 1172(W) of 2011and 1181(W) of 2011, the investigation was transferred to CentralBureau of Investigation (for short "the CBI"), the appellant beforeus.4. During investigation accused, namely Abhani BhusanSingha, Subhendu Mondal, Aswani Chalak, Nabagopal Sanki,Pintu Roy, Gandib Ban Roy, Lob Duley, Banamali Duley,Niranjan Kotal, Rupchand Ahir, Raju Roy and Swapan Roy werearrested. On completion of investigation, the CBI submittedcharge sheet dated 4.4.2011 against 21 accused, including thearrested ones and the absconders. It was mentioned in thecharge sheet that further investigation of the case was kept openfor the purposes of collection of further evidence and the arrest ofthe absconders. It was also mentioned that further collectedevidence during investigation would be forwarded by filingsupplementary charge sheet.5. The respondents, namely, Rathin Dandapat, Md.Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri, Tapan Dey (allrespondents in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
Page 43611 of 2015), Chandi Karan (respondent in Criminal Appealarising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015), Anuj Pandey(respondent in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4241 of 2011), and one Kanai Dey, were declared proclaimedoffenders. Meanwhile, the trial proceeded and, after providingnecessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, on 9.8.2011,committed the case to the Court of Sessions, PaschimMedinipore. The Court of Sessions on 10.12.2011 framed chargeagainst accused Abhani Bhusan Singha, Subhendu Mondal,Aswani Chalak, Nabagopal Sanki, Pintu Roy, Gandib Ban Roy,Lob Duley, Banamali Duley, Niranjan Kotal, Rupchand Ahir,Raju Roy and Swapan Roy. The last two accused, namely, RajuRoy and Swapan Roy were later declared juveniles and theircases were sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Paschim Medinipore.The present case, as against said two juveniles, is said to be lyingstayed vide order dated 8.9.2014, passed by this Court in S.L.P.No. 5699 of 2014. In respect of other accused against whomcharge was framed, trial further proceeded and ten ProsecutionWitnesses were examined. However, their cross-examination wasdeferred at the instance of arrested accused persons, other than Page 5the juveniles.6. Out of eight proclaimed offenders, five, namely, RathinDandapat, Md. Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri andTapan Dey, were arrested on 29.4.2014, whereafter on 30.4.2014the CBI sought their remand in police custody. The AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram rejected the prayer of theCBI, aggrieved by which said investigating agency submittedRevisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2014) before theCalcutta High Court. Absconder-accused Chandi Karan wasarrested on 9.5.2014 by CID of the State, which informed the CBIabout his arrest and meanwhile vacation Magistrate remanded
judicial custody of said accused up to 12.5.2014. The CBI on12.5.2014 sought remand in police custody in respect of ChandiKaran, but the same was also rejected by the Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Jhargram, against which RevisionalApplication (C.R.R. No. 1641 of 2014) was filed before the HighCourt. As to the absconder-accused Anuj Pandey too, CID, WestBengal, on 7.5.2014 informed the CBI about his arrest fromChandrapura in Jharkhand, and he was produced on 8.5.2014before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram whereCBI sought remand in police custody but the same was alsorefused. Aggrieved by said order dated 8.5.2014, passed by the Page 6Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Revisional Application(C.R.R. No. 1640 of 2014) was filed before the High Court. All thethree Criminal Revisions were disposed of by the High Court byseparate orders of the same date, i.e., 15.10.2014, against whichthese criminal appeals are filed through special leave.7. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper toquote the relevant provisions of law.8. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC, whichempowers a Magistrate to authorize detention of an accused inthe custody of police, reads as under: - "Provided that, - (a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released Page 7
on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police."9. Sub-section (8) of Section 173, under which investigatingagency has power to further investigate the matter in which thereport/charge sheet has already been filed, is reproducedhereunder: - "(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."10. Relevant provision of sub-section (2) of Section 309 CrPC,empowering remand of an accused, provides as under: - Page 8 "(2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: xxx xxx xxx Explanation 1. - If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand." 11. In State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and others1, a three judge bench of this Court has laid down the law on the issue relating to grant of police custody of a person
arrested during further investigation. In paragraph 11 of said case, this Court has held as follows: - "11. There cannot be any manner of doubt that the remand and the custody referred to in the first proviso to the above sub-section are different from detention in custody under Section 167. While remand under the former relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be to judicial custody, detention under the latter relates to the stage of investigation and can initially be either in police custody or judicial custody. Since, however, even after cognizance is taken of an offence the police has a power to investigate into it further, which can be exercised only in accordance with Chapter XII, we see no reason whatsoever why the provisions of Section 167 thereof would not apply to a person who comes to be later arrested by the police in course of such investigation. If Section 309(2) is to be1 (2000) 10 SCC 438 Page 9 interpreted -- as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Ahmed Yasin Mansuri v. State of Maharashtra [1994 Cri LJ 1854 (Bom)], -- to mean that after the Court takes cognizance of an offence it cannot exercise its power of detention in police custody under Section 167 of the Code, the Investigating Agency would be deprived of an opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further investigation, even if it can on production of sufficient materials, convince the Court that his detention in its (police) custody was essential for that purpose. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the words "accused if in custody" appearing in Section 309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167." 12. The case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI2, which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. In said case, the accused/absconder (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI police custody was granted on 14.2.2006 till 24.2.2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was granted till 8.3.2006. Said accused was remanded2 (2007) 8 SCC 770 Page 10
to judicial custody, and the accused sought statutory bail undersub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC as no charge sheet was filedagainst him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest. TheMagistrate rejected the application for statutory bail on theground that it was a case of further investigation after filing ofthe charge sheet, and the remand of the accused to judicialcustody was under Section 309 CrPC, after police remand cameto an end, granted under Section 167(2) CrPC. The High Courtupheld said order and this Court also affirmed the view taken bythe High Court.13. In view of the above facts, in the present case, in ouropinion, the High Court is not justified on the basis of DineshDalmia (supra) in upholding refusal of remand in police custodyby the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood in custodyafter his arrest under Section 309 CrPC. We have already notedabove the principle of law laid down by the three judge bench ofthis Court in State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra) thatpolice remand can be sought under Section 167(2) CrPC inrespect of an accused arrested at the stage of furtherinvestigation, if the interrogation is needed by the investigatingagency. This Court has further clarified in said case thatexpression `accused if in custody' in Section 309(2) CrPC does Page 11not include the accused who is arrested on further investigationbefore supplementary charge sheet is filed.14. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that therefusal of police remand in the present case is against the settledprinciple of law laid down by this Court. Therefore, theimpugned orders passed by the High Court, affirming the ordersof the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, are liableto be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by theHigh Court and the orders passed by the Magistrate, decliningthe police remand, are set aside. The Magistrate is directed topass fresh orders on the applications made by the appellant
before it relating to granting of police remand of the respondentsin accordance with law.15. All the three appeals stand allowed. ....................................J. [Dipak Misra] ....................................J. [Prafulla C. Pant]New Delhi;August 21, 2015. Page 1ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION IIBFOR JUDGMENT S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1081/2015CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUSRATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)WITHCRL.A. NO. 1082/2015CRL.A. NO. 1083/2015Date : 21/08/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement ofjudgment today.For Appellant(s) Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Misra and His Lordship. The appeals stand allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
SLP(Crl.) 3611/15 1 ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3611/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1510/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(Crl) No.3612/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(Crl) No.4241/2015 (With office report) Date: 17/08/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswajit Manna, Adv. Ms. Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Adv. Mrs. Sarla Chandra, AOR
SLP(Crl.) 3611/15 2 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Leave granted. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. (Chetan Kumar) Court Master (H.S. Parasher) Court Master
\212SLP(Crl.) 3611/151ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3611/2015(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014in CRR No. 1510/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta)CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUSRATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and interim relief andoffice report)WITH S.L.P.(Crl) No.3612/2015(With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)S.L.P.(Crl) No.4241/2015(With office report) Date: 17/08/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.Mr. Maninder Singh, ASGMs. Atreyi Chatterjee, Adv.Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv.Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Adv.Mr. Biswajit Manna, Adv.Ms. Debarpita Basu Mukherjee, Adv. Mrs. Sarla Chandra, AORSLP(Crl.) 3611/152 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned AdditionalSolicitor General for the Central Bureau of Investigation andMr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, learned senior counsel for therespondents.Leave granted.Hearing concluded.Judgment reserved.(Chetan Kumar)Court Master (H.S. Parasher)Court Master
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3611/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1510/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3612/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(Crl) No. 4241/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 10/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, ASG. Mr. Maninder singh, ASG. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Mangaljit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. B.P. Yadav, Adv. Mrs Sarla Chandra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General that the controversy that has arisen in this case is covered by a three Judge Bench decision rendered in State through CBI vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 438]. Learned counsel for the respondent shall come prepared to argue the matter. List on 17.08.2015. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master
SECTIONIIB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3611 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 6687 OF 2015 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) WITH PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3612 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 6859 OF 2015 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) WITH PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4241 OF 2015 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. ... Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 3611 & 3612 OF 2015 The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Issue notice returnable within six weeks.” Accordingly, separate Show Cause Notice returnable on 13.07.2015 was issued to all the respondents through Regd. A.D. Post. Service position of each matter is as under: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3611/2015 It is submitted that there are five respondents. It is further submitted that Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of all the five respondents . Service of show cause notice is complete.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3612/ 201 5 It is submitted that there is sole respondent. It is further submitted that Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent. Service of show cause notice is complete. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4241/2015 The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 11.05.2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “ Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Tag with SLP (Crl) No.3611 of 2015. ” Accordingly Show Cause Notice returnable on 13.07.2015 was issued to the sole Respondent through Regd. A.D. Post. It is submitted that Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent . Service of show cause notice is complete. It is further submitted that pursuant to the Order quoted above, the instant matter has been tagged with Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3611/2015 and are listed together. The matters abovementioned are therefore, listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED this the 4 th day of August, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. B.V. Balaramdas, Advocate 2. Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 7831/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1640/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS ANUJ PANDEY Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadham, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Tag with SLP (Crl) No.3611 of 2015. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master
Listed on 11.05.2015 Court NO. Item No. SECTION IIB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITOIN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 7831 & 7837 OF 2015 (Application for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petition) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CRL.) NO. OF 2015 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ...PETITIONER VERSUS SHRI ANUJ PANDEY ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned has been filed by Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2014 of the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R No. 1640 of 2014. It is submitted that there is a delay of 180 days in filing and delay of 5 days in refiling the Special Leave Petition and the same is accompanied with applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted that Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No 3611 of 2015 relating to same Criminal Case was listed before Hon'ble Court on 27.04.2015, when the Hon'ble Court directed issue of notice and the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Court. Copy of the Record of Proceedings dated 27.04.2015 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No 5699 of 2014 arising out of same incident was listed before Hon'ble Court on 12.01.2015 when the Hon'ble Court directed to list the matter on 20.03.2015 and the matter is still pending before Court. Copy of the Record of Proceedings dated 12.01.2015 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of Hon'ble
Court. The applications in the matter above mentioned are therefore listed before Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this the 8 th day of May, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to Mr. B.V.Balram Das , Advocate. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c3
r ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 7831/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1640/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS ANUJ PANDEY Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 11/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadham, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Tag with SLP (Crl) No.3611 of 2015.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)Gulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.05.1116:30:02 IST Court Master Court MasterReason:
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 6687/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1510/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No. 6859/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. B. Tamta, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master
SECTION-IIB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NOS. 6687 AND 6859 OF 2015 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NOS. OF 2015 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Petitioner VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. ... Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matters above mentioned have been filed by Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate on behalf of Petitioner against the Judgment and Orders dated 15.05.2014 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 1510 of 2014 and CRR No. 1641 of 2014. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 6687 OF 2015 It is submitted that there is delay of 180 days in filing special leave petition and is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. It is further submitted that Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5699/2014 arising out of same incident was listed before Hon'ble Court on 14.07.2014 when the Court was pleased to direct issue of notice and the matter is pending for hearing before this Hon'ble Court . (Copy of the Record of Proceedings dated 14.07.2014 is enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 6859 OF 2015 It is submitted that there is delay of 178 days in filing special leave petition and is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. It is further submitted that both the matters are arising out of same Criminal Case and are listed together.
The application above-mentioned is, therefore listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED this the 23 rd day of April, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SK-c2
Î ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...... CRLMP No(s). 6687/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/05/2014 in CRR No. 1510/2014 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Petitioner(s) VERSUS RATHIN DANDAPATH & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) WITH SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No. 6859/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 27/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. B. Tamta, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice returnable within six weeks.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)Gulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.2718:10:50 IST Court Master Court MasterReason: