The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently delivered a significant ruling concerning the limits of police remand and the rights of an accused who surrenders after being declared an absconder. The Court held that the mere act of an absconding accused surrendering after the final police report (Challan) has been filed does not automatically give the prosecution a right to seek police custody.

This is especially true in cases where the evidence against the surrendering accused is identical to the evidence used in a trial where co-accused persons have already been acquitted.

The matter originated from a serious criminal case involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, rioting, and violations of the Arms Act. Following a detailed investigation, the police filed a 'Challan' (charge-sheet) before the Sessions Court in Jammu.

While several individuals named in the FIR faced trial, the respondents in this particular revision—Dhanwanter Singh and others—could not be arrested at the time. Consequently, the trial court declared them absconders under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The trial for the available accused proceeded, eventually resulting in their acquittal. The State subsequently challenged this acquittal before the High Court. Meanwhile, in January 2014, the absconding accused (the respondents) surrendered before the trial court.

Upon their surrender, the prosecution moved an application seeking police remand for the respondents. The State argued that because these individuals had been absconding during the initial investigation, they had never been interrogated. The prosecution maintained that custodial interrogation was essential to determine their specific roles in the crime and to facilitate the filing of a supplementary challan.

However, the Sessions Court rejected the request for police remand. Aggrieved by this refusal, the State filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court in March 2014.

Justice Sanjay Parihar, presiding over the case, noted a striking detail: the State’s revision petition had remained pending for over ten years. Despite the passage of a decade, the State had shown no urgency in pursuing the matter.

The Court observed that during this long interval, the respondents had already been formally charged, pleaded not guilty, and were eventually acquitted by the trial court in March 2014. The trial court had allowed the respondents to adopt the evidence already recorded during the earlier trial of the co-accused, which had led to an acquittal.

The High Court dismissed the State’s petition based on several critical legal findings:

1. Merger of Orders: Justice Parihar pointed out that once the trial court passed a final judgment of acquittal for the respondents on March 19, 2014, the interlocutory order (the refusal of police remand) merged into that final judgment. Since the final acquittal was never independently challenged by the State, the revision petition regarding the remand became "infructuous" or meaningless.

2. Implicit Declaration by the Police: The Court emphasized that when the investigating agency files a complete charge-sheet against all accused persons, it carries an implicit declaration. It suggests that the agency has gathered sufficient evidence and does not consider further custodial interrogation necessary at that stage.

3. Absence of Formal Police Request: Crucially, the record showed that the investigating agency itself had not made a formal request for a "supplementary investigation" or shown a specific need for custodial interrogation. The request appeared more as a procedural demand rather than a necessity based on new material.

4. Rights of the Absconder vs. Prosecution Power: The Court made it clear that "absconding" does not give the police a "blank check" to demand custody once the person surrenders. Justice Parihar remarked:

"Mere surrender of absconding accused after filing of challan does not create a right in favour of the prosecution to seek police custody, especially when the prosecution relies upon the same evidence on which co-accused have already been acquitted."

The ruling serves as a vital reminder of the protections afforded to an accused person under the Indian legal system. It reinforces that the power of the State to seek custodial interrogation is not absolute and must be justified by the circumstances of the investigation.

By dismissing the State’s revision, the High Court upheld the principle that if the foundation of the prosecution’s case (the evidence) has already failed in the trial of co-accused, the mere late entry of an absconder into the legal process does not revive the State's right to custodial interrogation.

Case Details:

Case Title: State of J&K V/s Dhanwanter Singh and ors.
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar