The Telangana High Court has affirmed that the constitutional right to remain silent is a fundamental safeguard, preventing the investigating authority from seeking an extension of police custody solely due to the accused exercising this right and refraining from providing satisfactory answers.

“It is relevant to note that with regard to the contention of the respondent/Investigating Agency that during interrogation the appellant could not give satisfactory reply regarding the transactions and he was silent, it is apt to note that to remain silent during the investigation is a fundamental right guaranteed to the appellant/A.31 as per Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent or investigating agency cannot contend that the appellant could not give a satisfactory reply to certain transactions and was silent.”

It is argued that the investigating authority submitted a second petition, stating that the accused failed to provide satisfactory responses and that the investigation in the case is still ongoing.

On September 1st, 2023, a second application was filed seeking custody of the accused/petitioner for an additional 5 days. The accused/petitioner contested this action, citing that 30 days had passed since the time of arrest. According to Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the application for remand should have been made within 30 days from the date of arrest.

Nevertheless, the trial court granted the application filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). In response, the current revision was filed to challenge this decision.

The Bench after analyzing the provisions of law and referencing settled judgements, the Bench concluded that a second application for the extension of police custody can indeed be submitted after the initial 30-day period. However, it stipulated that the investigating authority must accompany this application with an affidavit outlining the reasons for the request and clarifying any delays, if applicable.

Hence, it was held that while the application filed by the NIA for extension was maintainable, in the facts of the present case, the reasons provided by the NIA were not satisfactory for extension of custody. 

“Thus, having contended that the Investigating Officer has thoroughly interrogated the appellant during police custody, it cannot file second application contending that some new evidence has come forth against the accused which needs to be confronted with him. The said ground mentioned by the respondent/NIA is not a good ground for delay in moving the said application.”

Petitioner's Counsel: Hussain Aamir, representing T. Rahul Respondents' Counsel: P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor (NIA)