Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In a criminal revision petition revolving around whether a Public Prosecutor could, in the absence of a request by the police, obtain police custody for interrogation, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Parihar, J., while dismissing the petition, held that a Public Prosecutor cannot seek police remand in absence of investigative agency’s request.
An FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘RPC’) read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Upon completion of investigation, a criminal challan was presented before the Trial Court, in which Respondent 1 to 3 (‘absconders’) were arrayed as accused. However, they absconded and the evidence was taken in their absence under Section 512 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (‘J&K CrPC’). The State contended that since the respondents were not arrested during the investigation prior to presentation of the challan, they were not subjected to any investigation or interrogation and the challan against them was presented in absentia.
On 19-8-2013, the Trial Court rendered the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused who were facing the trial. An acquittal appeal was filed by the State in which the process has already been issued. After acquittal of the other co-accused, the absconders filed an application before the Trial Court for surrendering. The Public Prosecutor sought police custody of the absconders on the ground that their custodial interrogation was required before filing the supplementary challan against them. But the Trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 6-3-2014 on non-existent grounds including that no request was given by the police for the police remand.
The Court noted that the revision was filed on 19-3-2014, but despite issuance of process, the absconders were never effectively served. While the co-accused were acquitted on 19-8-2013, the absconders surrendered on 25-1-2014 and were subsequently formally charged. They pleaded not guilty and sought adoption of evidence recorded earlier. The Court opined that since the co-accused were acquitted, the impugned order merged into the final judgment, and the revision petition was rendered infructuous. Further, there was nothing to indicate that the acquittal was separately challenged.
The Court noted that the investigating agency neither had sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody of the absconders. The Court observed that the Public Prosecutor, without such a request, had no independent authority to seek police remand under Section 167 of the J&K CrPC. The Court further observed that once the charge-sheet was filed against all accused, it implied that no further custodial interrogation was necessary, and that the impugned order was in consonance with law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
[State (UT of J&K) v. Dhanwanter Singh, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 62, decided on 31-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.