Gujarat High Court
Abdulhalim vs State on 8 August, 2008
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/54020/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 540 of 2008
==================================================
ABDULHALIM
SAMSUDDIN PATHAN - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
==================================================Appearance
:
MR HASHIM QURESHI for the
Applicant.
MR HL JANI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent.
==================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. This Revision Application filed under Section 397 of read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the order dated 28-07-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, Metropolitan Court No. 11, Ahmedabad City in application preferred by the respondent-State seeking remand of the petitioner. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the learned Magistrate granted remand of the accused in police custody for a period of 14 days commencing from 28-07-2008 to 10-08-2008.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Hasim Qureshi for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered that the fact that offences alleged against the petitioner were committed in the year 2002 and after the span of almost 6 years, remand was sought by the Investigating Officer, and as adequate reasons were not assigned by the Investigating Officer seeking remand, the same could not have been granted. The learned Advocate submitted that the order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate is vague in nature and the learned Magistrate has mechanically granted the remand at a stretch for a period of 14 days which is against the provisions contained in Section 167 of the Code. Even the grounds which are mentioned in the application for remand are not supported by the material on record of the case and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have granted the remand, as prayed for by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the petitioner is doing social work and he cannot be connected with the present bomb-blasts which took place in Ahmedabad City on 16-07-2008 and, therefore, even on that ground also, the learned Magistrate ought not to have granted remand of the petitioner. The learned Advocate submitted that as the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not disclose the adequate reasons for granting remand and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside. Placing reliance on the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the learned Advocate further submitted that the application was partly allowed and the remand of 14 days was granted by the learned Magistrate. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the learned Magistrate ought not to have granted remand of 14 days since the application preferred by the Investigating Officer was partly allowed and, therefore, it is a fit case to modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the alternative, the learned Advocate submitted that since the petitioner is in police custody for a period of 11 days, the petition deserves to be allowed to the aforesaid extent and the petitioner requires to be released forthwith. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions in Jairajsinh Temubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) GLR 215 and Shashibala Sharma, Trustee & Principal Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (2) GLR 1393 in support of the submissions that remand cannot be granted in a mechanical manner and reasons are required to be assigned for granting remand to the extent of 14 days. Thus, the learned Advocate submitted that considering the ratio laid down by our High Court, it is a fit case to set aside the order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani for the respondent-State submitted that while passing the order for remand, the learned Magistrate has considered various grounds and they are enumerated exhaustively in the order itself and since the order is passed by the learned Magistrate after perusal of the material which was placed before him and the case-diary, the same does not call for any interference in revisional powers under Section 397 of the Code and, therefore, the revision application deserves to be dismissed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the presence of the petitioner in the police custody is required and, therefore, the order does not require any modification. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that very recently on 26-07-2008, serial bomb-blasts took place in Ahmedabad and in that connection, the interrogation of the petitioner is required and even on that ground, the learned Magistrate has granted the remand of the petitioner and, therefore, it does not call for any interference and the revision is liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of State represented by Inspector of Police and Others Vs. N. M. T. Joy Immaculate, AIR 2004 SC 2282 and submitted that the order of remand passed by the Trial Court is an interlocutory order and, therefore, no interference is called for in a revision application preferred under Section 397 of the Code and even on that ground, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Hasim Qureshi for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani at length and in great detail. I have perused the averments made in the petition as well as the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in the order passed in the application for remand preferred by the Investigating Officer.
6. The learned Magistrate has assigned 8 reasons for granting the remand of the petitioner and they are exhaustively enumerated in the order itself. One of the reasons for granting the remand is the possibility of the petitioner's involvement in the bomb-blast which took place on 26-07-2008 and, therefore, custodial interrogation was required to be done. Considering the fact that the petitioner wields considerable influence, the interrogation cannot be done in a free atmosphere and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly granted the police remand of the petitioner.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in granting remand. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered with while exercising revisional powers under Section 397 of the Code. The powers under Section 397 of the Code are of supervisory in nature. In exercise of the revisional powers, this Court can only examine the legality or validity of the order but cannot supplant the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court which is based on material on the record of the case. Even otherwise, as held by the Apex Court in case of State represented by Inspector of Police and Others Vs. N. M. T. Joy Immaculate (supra), the order of remand is an interlocutory order and, that in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, revision against the said order is not maintainable.
8. In view of the above discussion, the application does not call for any interference and as the same is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath Top