Supreme Court of India has challenged the interpretation provided by the 1992 judgment in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, which asserted that police or investigating agencies cannot seek custody of an accused after the initial 15 days of arrest.
The apex court's fresh stance emerged during the course of the Senthil Balaji case, wherein Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji and his wife were challenging custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam.
The recent observations from the Supreme Court highlight a departure from the previous legal interpretation set by the Anupam Kulkarni verdict. Earlier this year, in April, a separate bench of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Vikas Mishra also raised doubts about the Anupam Kulkarni doctrine, indicating that the restriction on detaining an accused in police custody beyond 15 days from the initial arrest might require reconsideration.
The Senthil Balaji case pertains to the ED's efforts to secure custody of the Minister and his wife for investigation. The division bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh, while rejecting their plea against ED custody, concluded that the 15-day custody period could be an aggregate of shorter periods sought over the entire investigation span of 60 or 90 days. Consequently, the bench has referred the Anupam Kulkarni judgment to a larger bench for review.
In the ruling, the bench stated, "We are conscious of the fact that a different interpretation has been given as to how the total 15 days which could be sought for by an investigating agency, should be construed and reckoned... This period of 15 days has to be reckoned, qua either a police custody or a custody in favor of the investigating officer, spanning over the entire period of investigation... The period of 15 days being the maximum period would span from time to time with the total period of 60 or 90 days as the case may be. Any other interpretation would seriously impair the power of investigation."
The dissent from the Senthil Balaji bench stems from their disagreement with the Anupam Kulkarni ruling's interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Senthil Balaji bench asserts that the proviso should be understood in light of the main provision, emphasizing the words "from time to time, authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit", "for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole". This, they argue, supports the notion that the 15-day custody can be distributed across the entire investigation period.
Furthermore, the court distinguished between "custody" and "actual physical custody," noting that the 15-day limitation on police custody would apply only when an accused is under the actual, physical custody of an investigating agency. The case of Senthil Balaji, who was hospitalized during the first 15 days, exemplifies this nuanced understanding.
The Senthil Balaji judgment has not only underscored the need for revisiting the Anupam Kulkarni doctrine but has also delved into the intricacies of custody and its implications in investigations. The evolving legal interpretation promises to have far-reaching implications for future cases involving the duration of police custody during investigations.
Case Details:
Click here to read/judgment order
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy