Remand Order Upheld: Legal Analysis in The Case of The National Investigation Agency vs. The State

In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, a detailed legal analysis was provided in the case of The National Investigation Agency vs. The State. The court examined the validity of the remand order and its implications on the rights of the accused. This case has far-reaching consequences for the judicial system’s approach to remand orders in cases involving the National Investigation Agency and the State.

Facts

• The appellant was one of 12 named accused in a criminal case involving various offenses including Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B IPC, and Arms Act.
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses on 11.03.2016.
• The appellant filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings, including the order of cognizance dated 11.03.2016.
• Charges were framed against the appellant on 19.09.2016.
• The appellant was granted bail even in a case involving Section 302 IPC.
• Offenses under the Arms Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act were initially charged against the appellant.
• Investigating Officer added offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 09.04.2017.
• The Central Government issued an order empowering the National Investigation Agency to take up the case on 13.02.2018.
• The appellant’s bail was challenged and re-evaluated in the context of the new offenses added to the case.
• The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and criminal miscellaneous petition on 26.09.2018.
• The appellant then filed appeals against this judgment.
• The National Investigation Agency re-registered the case under the Unlawful Activities Act, and sought the appellant’s custody.
• The Special Judge also issued production warrants for the appellant in relation to the NIA investigation.
• A charge sheet was submitted under multiple Sections of the IPC and Arms Act on 10.03.2016.
• The High Court passed an interim order on 15.12.2016 staying the further proceedings in Tandwa P.S. Case No.2/2016.
• As a result of this order, the appellant was produced from Chatra Jail on 25.06.2018 and was remanded to judicial custody by order of Special Judge dated 25.06.2018.

Also Read: Entitlement to Back Wages: Upholding Justice

Issue

• The appellant was granted bail on 10.03.2016 in F.I.R. No.02/2016 for certain offences.
• The appellant was already in jail for another case when additional offences were added.
• An application was filed for a production warrant, and the appellant was remanded in judicial custody.
• There is a debate on whether cancelling bail is necessary when new offences are added to a case an accused has bail in.
• The issue of re-registration of a second F.I.R. when there is already an existing one arising from the same incident is raised.
• Questioning N.I.A.’s further investigation when a charge sheet has already been submitted and cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is discussed.

Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Recruitment Rules Challenge

Arguments

• High Courts have different views on whether to cancel bail or obtain a fresh bail order for newly added offenses.
• The NIA Act allows for transfer of investigation to NIA for scheduled offenses.
• NIA conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet.
• NIA re-registered the FIR as per Central Government’s order.
• The appeal challenges the order remanding the appellant to judicial custody under Section 167 Cr.P.C.
• The bail granted earlier cannot apply to new offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
• ASG argues that NIA re-registered the FIR as per NIA Act.
• Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. allows for further investigation even after submission of the report.
• The Special Judge had the authority to remand the appellant for further investigation by NIA.
• Counsel for parties cited various judgments in support of their arguments.
• Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in CRMC No.270/2018 – Fayaz Ahmad Khan and Ors. Vs. State, decided on 03.10.2018.
• The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in the aforementioned case, relied on a judgment of this Court in Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. and held that the addition of a penal provision for a serious non-bailable offense does not automatically cancel the earlier granted bail.
• The court emphasized that the police cannot re-arrest the accused until the previously granted bail is explicitly cancelled by the appropriate court through a positive order.

Also Read: Land Ownership Rights Judgement

Analysis

• The judgment in Dinesh Dalmia vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 8 SCC 770, interpreted Section 167 Cr.P.C in relation to Section 309 Cr.P.C.
• The right to bail under Section 167 ceases once a charge-sheet is filed.
• The legality of a second FIR was considered in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI, where the legal aspects were discussed.
• The statutory scheme does not give a clear conclusion on further investigation after filing a charge-sheet under Section 173.
• The Bombay High Court’s interpretation of Section 309(2) in Mansuri case could deprive the investigating agency of the opportunity to interrogate a person arrested during further investigation.
• The power of the court to direct remand depends on the trial stages specified in Section 167 and Section 309.
• In certain cases like Hamida vs. Rashid, an accused must surrender and apply for bail for newly added serious non-cognizable offences.
• The judgment in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat clarified that bail granted for a minor offence does not automatically stand cancelled when serious non-bailable offences are added.
• The change in the nature of the offence can impact the liberty granted to an accused in relation to bail.
• Various High Courts and this Court have discussed the power of police to re-arrest an accused when new non-bailable offences are added during further investigation.
• The accused can be remanded under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. during investigation till cognizance has not been taken by the Court.
• There can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information regarding the same cognizable offense.
• The investigating agency can file a supplementary report to the primary report under Section 173(8) CrPC.
• The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offenses.
• The High Court can issue directions under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in certain circumstances.
• Cancellation of earlier bail is not mandatorily required before arresting an accused for newly added offenses.
• The court can direct the accused to be arrested and committed to custody without canceling earlier bail in some cases.
• The officer in charge of a police station can conduct further investigation and file a supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC.
• The Court can trigger further investigation even after a final report is submitted under Section 173(8) CrPC.
• Section 309 of Cr.P.C allows the Court to postpone or adjourn proceedings for valid reasons.
• Power under Section 437(5) and 439(2) allows the Court to arrest and commit to custody an accused who has been granted bail under certain circumstances.
• Chapter III deals with investigation by the National Investigation Agency, with specific sections relevant for the case.
• The Court can direct the accused, who has been granted bail, to be arrested and committed to custody under certain circumstances as per Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
• Section 167 and 309 of Cr.P.C plays a role in authorizing the detention of a person during further investigation.
• The power to transfer investigation to the State Government and investigate connected offences are also discussed.
• Specific procedures and limitations are laid down in the Cr.P.C for handling cases involving bail, custody, and investigation in scheduled offences.
• The High Court erroneously held that the order of remand dated 25.06.2018 was under Section 167 Cr.P.C., which is incorrect.
• It is determined that the remand order dated 25.06.2018 was actually in exercise of power under Section 309(2) of the Cr.P.C.
• The special Judge had the authority to utilize the power under Section 309(2) in this case, making the remand order on 25.06.2018 valid.
• Therefore, there was no legal flaw in the remand order dated 25.06.2018 as the accused was rightly remanded to judicial custody.

Decision

• The appeals have been dismissed as no merit was found in them.
• The remand order has been upheld based on the reasons provided.
• Issue Nos.4 and 5 have been decided according to the findings.

Case Title: PRADEEP RAM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000816-000817 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement