The top court at the outset said that the counsel for the respondent-accused had no answer to its query:
“That in a given case it may happen that the learned trial/Special Court refuses to grant the police custody erroneously which as such was prayed within 15 days and/or immediately on the date of arrest and thereafter the order passed by the trial/Special Court is challenged by the investigating agency before the higher Court, namely, Sessions Court or the High Court and the higher Court reverses the decision of the learned Magistrate refusing to grant the police custody and by that time the period of 15 days is over, what would be position?“
The Bench added that the accused had ‘successfully avoided’ the full operation of the police remand order. This gives a premium for ‘frustration of the judicial process’, the Court added, observing,
“No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate.“
Source: Barandbench
