According to Section 167 CrPC, only when the Magistrate feels that there is enough strength in the reasons seen in the remand report given by the police, he has to be remanded. But looking at the recent remand reports, it seems that the magistrates are mechanically remanding. It is obvious that the police are not working independently. Everyone, including the opposition, wants an independent police system. But after they came to the government they are not taking any steps to make the police independent. The investigating police department should be separate, strong, must have expertise in criminal investigation using scientific methods. In the Prakash Singh case, a three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India suggested that there should be a complete separation between the law enforcement and investigative police. There should be no other burden on the investigating police. But years are passing but there is no progress in this direction. The police who investigate white-collar crimes are lacking any expertise. According to Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an FIR should be issued and the crime scene should be visited as soon as the crime has been committed. The necessary evidence should be collected there. Thereafter, when deemed necessary, the accused should be arrested. Arrest of the accused is the final step in the eyes of the law. Arrest should be made only when deemed necessary after collecting evidence. But now any case investigation is upside down. The first accused is being arrested. After that evidence is being collected. The Supreme Court once said in the Joginderkumar case that arrest should not be made routine, having the power to arrest is one step and its justification is another step. But there is no qualitative change in the police force. They feel that the arrest is an important aspect of the investigation. Without collecting proper evidence, the police arrested the accused, blackened two white papers and wrote a remand report and sent it to the magistrate. Remand is not a mechanical process, it is a justiciable action taken by the Magistrate. These remand requests must be decided by considering Section 41 of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution.
On a funny Facebook post, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) made an interesting observation that the FIR registered against the Communist Party of India (Marxist, Leninist) office bearer should not be remanded. The police registered a case against a 62-year-old man and sent him to remand for captioning a vacation picture on Facebook as ‘Trip to Sirumalai for shooting’. The remand was rejected by the Magistrate named Arun. The police registered a case against him under sections 120B, 122, 505(1)(B), 507 of the IPC for waging war against the state and sent him to remand. The magistrate rejected the remand. The magistrate stated in his order that there were no sufficient reasons. While rejecting this, the Supreme Court cited the case of ‘State vs. Nakkiran’ (2019). These orders were upheld by the High Court. In his order, High Court judge Swaminathan opined that the remand was rightly rejected by the judicial magistrate and the case against him was frivolous and an abuse of legal process. The accused in that case went to jail and applied for bail because the magistrate did not act judiciously. Thus the Supreme Court made very serious observations with the case of Satinder Kumar Anital vs. CBI and Others 2023 Live Law (Supreme Court) 233 observing the magistrates who did not act legally and fairly.
Sent to custody of the accused in violation of the orders issued by the Supreme Court has increased in recent times. Recently, the Supreme Court bench noticed that these remands are increasing especially from the state of Uttar Pradesh. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahyanuddin Amunullah and Arvind Kumar of the Supreme Court (Sathindar Kumar v. CBI, 2022 Live Law (Supreme Court) 577) once again laid down the guidelines for arrest, custody and bail and reminded that a bench of the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the issuance of custody and remand orders by the magistrates in violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on arrest, custody and bail even after 10 months have passed. The lawyers appearing for the defendants in this case submitted many remand orders to the court. They explained to the court that the magistrates were not aware of this verdict. Non-observance of guidelines in Satinderkumar’s case has two kinds of consequences. First is sending unnecessary people to custody, second is creating new cases. These need to be prevented. The Supreme Court has instructed the Chief Justices of the High Court to stop giving them judicial work and train them in judicial academies to improve their skills if the magistrates are issuing orders in defiance of the orders laid down in this judgment. Most of the judicial magistrates have little experience. A large number of people are being appointed as advocates without practicing. Judges holding the status of Senior Civil Judge are being appointed as Magistrates in the metropolitan city of Hyderabad. This should be done in other major cities. That means upgrading. Then the situation may improve somewhat. However, all judges need continuous training. Even the police. One can only hope that the judicial academies will work in that direction. Actions should also be taken against people who knowingly do wrong. Only then will the guidelines of the Supreme Court be implemented.
