Criminal Procedure Code

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni

(1992) 3 SCC 141: AIR 1992 SC 1768

Facts

Anupam J. Kulkarni was arrested in connection with a criminal investigation.
He was initially remanded to judicial custody.
After the first fifteen days from the date of remand had expired, the CBI sought police custody for interrogation.
The agency argued that:
it had been unable to question him earlier;
he had been hospitalised or otherwise unavailable;
and effective investigation required custodial interrogation.
The legal question concerned the time limit in Section 167(2) CrPC for authorising police custody.

Whether police custody can be granted after expiry of the first fifteen days of remand.
Whether judicial custody during that period preserves a later right to seek police custody.
Whether a different offence discovered later changes the position.

Under the CrPC as interpreted in this judgment:
police custody and judicial custody may be authorised during the first fifteen days from the initial remand;
after those fifteen days, detention may continue only in judicial custody during the remaining statutory period.
The fifteen days are calculated from the date on which the Magistrate first authorises detention under Section 167.
Police cannot postpone their request and obtain custody later in the same case merely because the accused was initially sent to jail.
If a genuinely different offence arising from a separate transaction is later discovered, fresh police custody may be considered in relation to that distinct case.
The rule protects the arrested person from repeated transfers between jail and police custody.
BNSS development: Section 187 changes this position. Fifteen days of police custody may now be authorised in whole or in parts within the initial forty or sixty days of the applicable detention period.

The CBI’s need for interrogation was understandable but could not override the express temporal structure of Section 167.
The first fifteen days give investigators an opportunity to seek police custody where necessary.
If the Magistrate chooses judicial custody, the investigating agency must act within the remaining part of that initial window.
Once the window closes, allowing police custody would:
expose the accused to renewed custodial pressure;
create uncertainty;
and defeat the protective object of the provision.
Hospitalisation or practical difficulty did not extend the statutory period.
Courts cannot create additional police-custody days because the agency could not use the original period effectively.
The Court distinguished between:
further facts emerging in the same transaction; and
an entirely separate offence.
Mere addition of another penal section to the same factual case would not restart the fifteen-day period.
A separate transaction may justify a separate arrest and remand assessment, but the distinction must be genuine rather than artificial.
The CBI therefore could continue:
questioning in accordance with jail rules;
collecting documents;
examining witnesses;
and completing other investigative steps, but could not obtain police custody in the original case after the first fifteen days.

The Supreme Court held that police custody in the same case could not be granted after expiry of the first fifteen days of remand under the CrPC.
Only judicial custody could continue thereafter.
The rule has been statutorily modified for BNSS cases by Section 187, but remains controlling for CrPC proceedings governed by the old Code