Judicial custody is an essential component of the Indian legal system, which constitutes a significant portion of the criminal justice process. It refers to the confinement of an accused in a prison, as opposed to police custody, which involves the accused being held in a police station lock-up. Simply put, judicial custody means that the accused is being detained under the supervision of a judicial magistrate. During Judicial Custody, the accused is in the custody and supervision of a Judicial Magistrate and is kept in either a Central or State jail as directed by the Judicial Magistrate. The police can question the accused, but only with the court’s authorisation while he is in judicial custody.
Legal Framework Relating to Judicial Custody:
The concept of judicial custody is established in several laws of the Indian legal system, most notably the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 187 of the BNSS describes the remand procedure, including the criteria under which an accused may be remanded in judicial custody. On interrogation, if the police officer feels that this investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours and the allegations against the accused appear to be true and a prima facie case is being made out against the accused, then the police officer will take the accused to the magistrate. Judicial custody may extend up to a period of 60 or 90 days as a whole, depending upon the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence.
Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita:
Section 187 states that if an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the accused must be produced before a magistrate, who may authorise the accused’s detention in police or judicial custody. The initial period of police custody must not exceed more than 15 days. If the investigation is not completed within this time frame, the accused must be transferred to judicial custody. For most offences, the entire duration of imprisonment, including police and court, cannot exceed 60 days, and 90 days for offences punishable by death, life imprisonment, or at least ten years in jail. The accused is eligible for bail if the investigation is not completed within this term.
Also Read: The Information Technology Act, 2000
Purpose and Importance of Judicial Custody:
- Preventing Influence and Coercion: Judicial custody prevents the accused from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, resulting in a fair investigation.
- Ensuring Presence at Trial: It ensures that the accused is present for trial, preventing them from fleeing.
- Maintaining Public Safety: In critical cases, court custody is required to safeguard the public from potentially dangerous individuals.
Section 187 BNSS provides that if the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours after the accused’s arrest, the accused must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. The purpose of Section 187 is either to obtain police custody of the accused for further interrogation or to commit the accused to the discretion of the magistrate.
Procedure for Ordering an Accused to Judicial Custody:
Sending an accused to judicial custody involves several steps, ensuring legal and procedural methods are followed without violating any of the accused’s rights. The following procedure is followed for the same:
The arrest of the accused:
The police officer arrests the accused without a warrant and keeps him in their custody to interrogate the case. Still, the accused must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, excluding the reasonable time needed to transport the accused from the police station to the court. The official must send a copy of the relevant diary entries to the nearest magistrate and simultaneously forward the accused to that magistrate. This ensures that the judicial authority is promptly informed and involved in the process.
Taking Order From The Magistrate:
If the allegations against the accused appear to be true and a prima facie case is being made against the accused, then the police officer will file a ‘Remand Report’ if they wish to interrogate further. The magistrate has the following options with respect to this remand report:
- The magistrate can send the accused to police custody for a maximum of 15 days or
- The magistrate will send the accused to judicial custody or
- The magistrate will send the accused to judicial custody.
Depending on the entire time permitted (sixty or ninety days), the magistrate is then allowed to hold the accused, in whole or in part, for a maximum of fifteen days during the first forty or sixty days of the detention period. The accused must be sent to a magistrate with the proper authority if the magistrate decides that additional detention is not necessary and lacks the authority to try the matter or commit it for trial.
Duration of Judicial Custody:
The accused may be held for longer than the first fifteen days if the magistrate determines there are sufficient reasons for doing so. There are stringent restrictions on this extension, though. Ninety days for inquiries concerning crimes carrying the possibility of death, life imprisonment, or a minimum of ten years in jail. Inquiries pertaining to other offences will take sixty days. If the accused can provide bail, they must be released on it at the end of these terms (ninety or sixty days). Such a release is considered to fall under Chapter XXXV’s rules.
The duration of judicial custody is subject to the limitations prescribed under Section 187 of the BNSS. If the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused is entitled to statutory bail, as reinforced by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017).
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Gian Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980), ruled that mere interrogation by police during judicial custody does not change the nature of custody. In the same case, it was also held that the accused cannot be sent back to police custody in connection with or in continuation of the same investigation once he is remanded to judicial custody.
Even if the accused is arrested by the officers of the NDPS, CBI, or ED, will they be charged under 187 BNSS, and can they be sent to judicial custody?
Yes, they are bound by Section 187 of the BNSS, and the following case supports the same.
Enforcement Directorate v. Deepak Mahajan, 1994 SC
The court said that there should be an objective interpretation for the invocation of Section 187 BNSS since it is a matter of the safety of the accused. Therefore, if such an officer has been arrested, the accused must be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours.
Rights of the Accused Post-Judicial Custody:
After the period of 60 days or 90 days is over, the accused gets the ‘Right to Default Bail’. The accused, after the said period is over, needs to apply for bail in court, which ordered judicial custody, and furnish the same thereafter. as a matter of right, he will be released on bail by the magistrate.
Landmark Cases:
- Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007), SC
The court held that if the police officers deliberately file an incomplete charge sheet within 60 or 90 days, then that will not amount to defeating the right to default bail, and the judicial magistrate has to examine whether the charge sheet is complete or not. The Court ruled that the appellant had no statutory right to be released on bail, as observed by the High Court.
- Sunil Kumar Sharma v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (2005)
The Delhi High Court observed that once the investigating officer files the charge sheet, the magistrate cannot exercise any powers under Section 187(2) BNSS because the period of investigation is over and the magistrate cannot issue a remand order under Section 187 BNSS. The Court ruled that the petitioner was in judicial custody based on a valid remand order and was not entitled to be released on bail.
- Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigating Agency (2021).
The Court ruled that judicial custody does not necessarily imply that the accused should be imprisoned. If necessary, the court may also adopt the method of house arrest under judicial custody.
The Court expanded the scope of judicial custody and enlarged the ability of the Judicial Magistrate to order house detention in specified instances. Several considerations should be considered while determining the order of house arrest under judicial custody, including age, health condition, the accused’s background, and the nature of the crime.
Conclusion:
Judicial custody is an essential component of the Indian legal system, combining the requirement for effective inquiry with the protection of individual rights. The Indian judiciary has worked to promote the concepts of justice, fairness, and human dignity through a variety of procedural mechanisms, constitutional safeguards, and landmark decisions. While obstacles persist, ongoing efforts to reform and raise awareness can ensure that the judicial custody system performs its intended purpose within the context of the rule of law and that no accused is devoid of their constitutional and legal rights.
