INTRODUCTION

The dictionary meaning of Remand is to send back into custody.

Here, we send back the accused into the custody of police or that
of the magistrate for collecting evidence and completion of
investigation. The purpose of remand is to facilitate completion of
investigation.
Section 41 of Cr. P. C., empowers the police officer to arrest a
person without order of Magistrate and even without warrant if
the situation stated in the section is made out. Arrest of a person
is an encroachment over his liberty guaranteed by fundamental
rights and it also adversely affects his reputation and status.
Arrest may amount custody, but, custody is not necessarily
arrest .The words "arrest and "detention in custody" appearing in
Article 22 of the Constitution of India should be read conjunctively.
"Arrest" is a concept recognized by the Criminal Procedure Code
and more particularly Section 46 thereof. Therefore, no inference
can be drawn and by interpretative process, it cannot be held that
acts of the investigating agency to interrogation and questioning
to the person pertaining to the case would mean that such person
was detained in custody. When there is no arrest, then, there is no
obligation to comply with Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution
of India. Hence it is expected that the police officer exercise the
powers cautiously. If a person is arrested without warrant, the
police officer has to complete the investigation within 24
hours and till the, he can keep the accused with him. He has no
power to detain the person arrested exceeding that period
without authorization by nearest Magistrate. This is the mandate
prescribed by section 57 of Cr. P. Code.
Section 57 of tile Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a
person arrested shall not be detained in custody by the police for
a period longer than that which is reasonable but that such period
shall not exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for
journey from the place of arrest to the court of the Magistrate in
the absence of a special order under Section 167 of the Code.

NIRANJAN SINGH

VS .

PRABHAKAR (AIR 1980 SC 785)

THE

FULL

BENCH
Distinguished the same on an observation made by this Court
that equivocatory quibbling that the police have taken a man into
informal custody but have not arrested him, have detained him in
interrogation but have not taken him into formal custody, were
unfair evasion of the straightforwardness of the law. This Court
went onto observe further that there was no necessity of dilating
on the shady facet as the Court was satisfied that the accused
had physically submitted before the Sessions Judge giving rise to
the jurisdiction to grant bail. Taking refuge in the said observation,
the Full Bench observed that the decision rendered by this Court
could not be availed of by the learned counsel in support of his
contentions that the mere taking of a person into custody would
amount to arrest. The Full Bench observed that mere summoning
of a person during an enquiry under the Customs Act did not
amount to arrest so as to attract the provisions of Article 22(2) of
the Constitution of India and the stand taken that the persons
arrested under the Customs Act should be produced before a
Magistrate without unnecessary delay from the moment the
arrest is effected, had to fail.
REMAND IN CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of India through Article 22 (2) mandates that
every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24
hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for journey
from the place of arrest to that court and that no person shall be
detained in custody beyond that period without the authority of
the Magistrate. Personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article
21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR V. RAJESH

RANJAN[2005 AIR SCW 536], has observed as under:-

"It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except
in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal
liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which
guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of
personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the
criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which
are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the
pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with
law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of
Article 21 since the same is authorised by law."
The Constitution of India as well as the Code of Criminal
Procedure expect that an arrested person, who has been detained
in custody, shall not be kept in detention for any unreasonable
time and that the investigation must be completed as far as
possible within 24 hours. Where the investigation of the offence
for which accused has been arrested cannot be completed within
24 hours and there are grounds for believing that the accusation
or information against the accused is well- founded, the police is
obliged to forward the accused along with the case diary to the
nearest Magistrate for further remand of the accused person
under section 167 of the Cr. P. Code. Before a Magistrate
authorizes detention under section 167, Cr. P. C., he has to be
first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with
law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested are
satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not
satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is
duty bound not to authorize his further detention and release the
accused. In the case of RAM DOSS V/S STATE

OF

TAMIL NADU,

1993 CR.L.J 2147 M ADRAS HIGH COURT has held that while
granting remand U/sec.167 Cr.P.C. a Magistrate has to see: (i) The
grounds why detention beyond 24 hours is sought for (ii) If there
is a report disclosing cognizable offence. (ii) If case has been
registered for investigation. But a Magistrate cannot question why
such case has been entertained in absence of material therefore.

Section167 (2) of the Code gives power to the Magistrate to

detain the accused after satisfying himself that there are
grounds for detaining the accused. The magistrate can pass an
order of detention for a maximum period of 15 days in police
custody and thereafter in magisterial custody. It is clear that the
satisfaction of the magistrate as regards existence of adequate
grounds for detention is necessary. This cannot depend upon the
application which is presented to him but the material regarding
investigation which is produced before him which is contained in
the case diary. Therefore, the application presented on behalf of
the investigation officer must mention the name of the officer who
is presenting the same and the said application is required to be
considered by the Magistrate as contemplated by Section 167 of
the Code. (SHRAWAN WAMAN NADE VS. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA. 1994 (1) MAH.L.J. 220) 08 Taking into

consideration these aspects Honble Apex Court in the case of
ADRI DHARAN DAS

V.

STATE

OF

W.B. (2005)4SCC 303, has held

that ordinarily arrest is the part of the process of investigation

intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be
questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive,
preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the
connection of other person, if any, in the crime. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may provide information
leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to
curtail his freedom in order to enable investigation to proceed
without hindrance and to protect witness and persons connected
with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to
maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons,
arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of
investigation.
In the case of MANUBHAIL RATILAL PATEL
GUJRAT

AND OTHERS

V.

STATE

OF

(2013) 1SCC 314 Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that, remand is a fundamental judicial function of the

Magistrate. While performing this judicial function, Magistrate has

to satisfy himself that there are reasonable grounds therefore

and that materials placed before him justify remand of accused.
While remanding accused it is obligatory on part of Magistrate to
apply his mind to facts and not to pass remand order
automatically or in mechanical manner. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, has in the case
ANOTHER(2014)

OF

ARNESH

KUMAR

VS

STATE OF BIHAR AND

8 SCC 273, held as follows:

Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers

do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not
authorize detention casually and mechanically .
In that case the Honorable Supreme court has issued following
directions in respect of all offences which are punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7 years or which
may extend to 7 years; whether with or without fine.
1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to
automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the case
is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for
arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section
41, Cr.P.C;
2.

All police officers be provided with a check list containing

specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1) (b) (ii).

3.

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and

furnish the reasons and material which necessitated the arrest,

while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for
further detention.
4.

The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused

shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms

aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate
will authorize detention.
5.

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the

Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the
case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the

Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be

recorded in writing.
6.

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C be

served on the accused within two weeks from the date of

institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
7.

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart

from rendering the police officers concerned liable for

departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for
contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having
territorial
jurisdiction.
8. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid
by judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental
action by the appropriate High Court.
A careful reading of S.167(1),Cr.P.C. Would show that an
investigating officer can ask for remand only when there are
grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well
founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be
completed within the of 24 hours fixed by S. 57. Therefore, it
follows that a remand by a
Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient grounds must
exist for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of remand...
Article 22(1) of the Constitution gives a person arrested a twofold
protection, viz.(1)

that an arrested person shall not be detained

in custody without being told the grounds of such an arrest and

(2) that he shall be entitled to consult and to be defended by a
legal practitioner of his choice the same provision is given under
section 303 Cr. P. C. Article 22(2) gives yet another protection
stating that every person who is arrested and detained in custody
must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours

excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of
arrest to the Court of Magistrate and that no such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority
of a Magistrate. Section 50, Cr. P. C. which is a corollary to Article
22, Clause (1) and (5) of the Constitution of India ,enacts, that the
persons arrested should be informed of the ground of arrest, and
of right to bail.
Section 57 Cr. P.C. which is also in consonance with Article 22(2)
of the Constitution of India, provides that no police officer shall
detain, in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer
period that under all circumstances is reasonable and such period
shall not in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under
Section 167 exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for
the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrates Court.
Section 167 Cr.P.C. Deals with the procedure when investigation
cannot be completed in 24 hours. It is not necessary for the
purpose of this case to elaborately go into the history behind the
importance and object of the constitutional provisions as well as
the other provisions of the general law.
A careful reading of S. 167(1), Cr.P.C. would show that an
investigating officer can ask for remand only when there are
grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well
founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be
completed within the period of 24 hours fixed by S. 57. Therefore,
it follows that a remand by a
Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient grounds must
exist for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of remand. That
is the reason why it is required that a copy of the entries in the
diary should be Forwarded to the Magistrate along with the
arrested persons. This is the second stage in remanding the
accused persons. If the prima facie accusation or information is
not well founded and sufficient grounds do not exist for the
Magistrate to exercise his power of remand, in such cases,
remand of accused can be refused. A fortiori, a remand by a

Magistrate is not an automatic one and sufficient grounds must

exist for the Magistrate to exercise their powers of remand.
Judicial remands should not be passed in a routine manner Sec.
167 of the provision provides for the detention of the accused
during pendency of investigation Sec. 209 provides for detention
of the accused during pendency of Committal proceedings and
Sec. 309(2) provides for detention of the accused during
pendency of trial or inquiry. While dealing with the remand work
the Magistrates are required to adhere the following principles
and guidelines.

1. The period of 24 hours commences from the time the person is

arrested by the
Police.
2. The arrest of person is a condition precedent for taking the arrested
person in
Judicial custody.
3. Fifteen days time for remand is to be counted from the date of
production of the
Said person before the court.

4. A person arrested without warrant must be immediately informed

the grounds of his
Arrest and in case of every arrest it must be immediately be made
known to the
Arrested person that he/she is entitled to apply for bail.

5. The arrested person is entitled to get legal aid on his arrest from
the nearest Legal
Aid Committee, and such committee has to provide legal assistance
to the arrested

Person as per rules.

6. A person held in judicial custody can if circumstances justify be

transferred to police
Custody or magistrate custody or vice versa within a period of 15
days referred to in
Sec. 167(2) of the code.

7. Accused should not be ordinarily remanded to police custody unless

there is reason
To believe that some material and valuable information is likely to
be obtained which
Cannot be obtained expect by remanding the accused to police
custody.

8. For verifying the statement made by the accused police custody

may not be necessary. In such cases ordinarily Magistrate should
remand the accused to Magistrate custody.

9. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that the presence of the accused

with police is not
Necessary for investigation he may remand the accused to
magisterial custody.

10. While remanding the accused to police custody the Magistrate has
to take note that
(i) Such custody should not be granted for more than 15 days on the
whole, (ii) reasons
For remanding the accused to police custody should be mentioned
in the order and

(iii) Copy of the order and reasons should be sent to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate.
11. Before remanding the accused to police custody the Magistrate
should first get
Satisfied that the accusations against the accused are well
founded, and for that
Purpose he should not only go through the case diary and the
statements of the
Witnesses, he should scrutinize the record and decided as to
whether the
Prescribed formalities are followed and complied.

12. In case of the female accused, they should not kept in the police
lock up in which
Male suspects are detained. Female accused should be kept in
separate lock ups
And guarded by female constables. Interrogation of female
accused should be
Carried out only in presence of female police officers.

After expiry of the 15 days period if further police custody

remand is granted, it would be violation of Sec. 167 of the Code of
the Criminal Procedure. In the case of C.B.I. V/S ANUPAM KUMAR
(2000) 9 S UPREME COURT CASES

PAGE

266, the Honorable Apex

Court has observed that Sec. 167 (2) provides that at a time
accused can be remanded for 15 days. If further detention of
accused is necessary on satisfaction of the Magistrate but
further detention in Magisterial custody can be allowed.
Magistrate may authorize detention of the accused beyond the
period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist.
However there is further limitation for detention of accused
persons in such custody. Accused can be so detained for the

period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence

punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a term not less than 10 years. The detention can be authorized
for 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offense.
As per Sec. 167 (2) if the investigation in respect of the offenses
punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years is not completed
within 60 days or if the investigation in respect of offense
punishable with imprisonment for a period 10 years or more is not
completed within 90 days, then the accused shall be released on
bail if he is ready and willing to furnish bail and if he furnishes
bail. For counting the said period of 60/90 days, the first date of
remand is to
be considered, and not the date of the arrest, as held in the case
of CHANGAT SATYANARAYANAM

AND ORS

V/S STATE

OF

ANDHRA

PRADESH (1986 ) 3 SCC 141. In the case of NIRANJAN SINGH

VS.

PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE, (1980) 2 SCC 559. Speaking for

the Bench, Hon'ble Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer has declared the
law as follows He can be in custody not merely when the police
arrests him, produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand
to judicial or other custody. He can be stated to be in judicial
custody when he surrenders before the Court and submits to its
directions."
In the case of D.K.BASU V/S STATE

OF

WEST BENGAL AIR

1997 SC 610, the Honble Apex court has issued the following
11 procedural guidelines in the case of arrest, detention and
interrogation of any person.
1}

The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling

the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and

clear identification and name tags with their designation. The
particular of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of
the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
2}

That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the

arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and

such memo shall be attested by at least one witness. Who may be

either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable

person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also
be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and
date of arrest.
3}

A person who has been arrested or detained and is being

held in custody in a police station or interrogation center or other

local shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other
person known to him or having interest in his welfare being
informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is
being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting
witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or relative
of the arrestee.
4}

The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee

must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of

the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal
Aid Organization in the District police station of the area
concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after
the arrest.
5}

The person arrested must be made aware of this right to

have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is

put under arrest or is detained.
6}

An entry must be made in the diary at the place of

detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also

disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been
informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police
officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
7}

The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also

examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if
any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The
Inspector Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the
police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the
arrestee.

8}

The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by

a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by

a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by the
Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory
Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all
Tehsils and Districts as well.
9}

Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest,

referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his

record.
10} The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
11} A police control room should be provided at all Districts and
State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and
the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the
officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest
and at the police control room it should be displayed on a
conspicuous notice board.

THE CUSTODY UNDER SECTION 167(2) AND 309 CRIMINAL

PROEDURAL CODE
IN

CASE OF

RAKESH KUMAR

V.

STATE: 1994 I AD (DELHI)

669.Relevant provisions of sections 167(2) and 309. Sections 167

and 309 CrPC relevant, are reproduced below:
"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in
twenty-four hours.
(1) * * * (2)The Magistrate to whom an accused person is
forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has no
jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorize the
detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate
thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and
if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and

considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the

accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that
(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused
person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the
period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds
exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention
of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding,
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other
offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or
sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and
every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII
for the purposes of that Chapter;
(b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under
this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) * * * Explanation I.-- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby
declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified
in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long
as he does not furnish bail.
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.--(1) * * * *
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or
commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it
may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or
adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it

considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused

if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to
custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a
time:
It is well settled that no court has any inherent power of remand
of an accused to any custody. Such power has to be conferred by
law and must be traced to some provision of the statute. The
relevant provisions of the statute are sections 167 and 309 CrPC.
Remand during investigation is permissible under section 167(2)
CrPC up to a prescribed maximum period. After the filing of the
charge-sheet or the challan (which signals the completion of
investigation) and after cognizance is taken, remand of on
accused to custody can only be under section 309(2) CrPC. A plain
reading of section 309 CrPC would disclose that before an order of
remand in respect of the accused can be passed there under, the
Magistrate, in the least, must have taken cognizance of the
alleged offence. Secondly, when the order of remand is passed
the accused must already be "in custody".t is also well settled
that non-completion of investigation within the period prescribed
under section 167(2) CrPC gives an accused an "indefeasible
right" to be released on bail. But, this indefeasible right" does
not ensure indefinitely. And, if not already availed of, it gets
extinguished the moment the investigation is completed and the
charge-sheet is filed. It is therefore clear that this indefeasible
right does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan/
charge-sheet being filed, if already not availed of. On the other
hand, if the right has been enforced and "bail-on-default" had
been granted, the mere filing of the challan will not mean that the
accused is to be taken back into custody. The challan or chargesheet can be filed at two stages: (1) during the period prescribed
under section 167 CrPC or (2) after such period is over. In the
latter case, an indefeasible right accrues to the accused for being
released on bail immediately upon the expiry of the prescribed

period, which right, if availed of as indicated above does not get

extinguished by the filing of the challan or charge-sheet. But,
such right gets extinguished on the filing of the challan if the
accused had not availed of the same till then. In the former case,
which is what has happened in the present case, there is no
question of any indefeasible right to bail having accrued as, till
the filing of the challan, the accused was under detention
consequent upon a valid order passed under section 17(2) CrPC.
While it is true that once the challan is filed the magistrate does
not have any power to pass an order of remand under section
167(2) CrPC, it does not mean that a valid order passed earlier
(i.e., prior to the filing of the challan) would case to operate
merely upon the filing of the charge-sheet or upon the taking of
cognizance of the alleged offences. In my view, such an order
under section 167(2) CrPC would continue to operate till it lapses
by efflux of time or it is replaced by an order of remand passed
under section 309 CrPC, whichever is earlier in point of time.
Where filing of the charge-sheet is immediately followed by the
Magistrate taking cognizance and just thereafter remanding the
accused to judicial custody under section 309(2) CrPC, there is no
problem. This is so because the lapse of one period [under section
167(2) CrPC] would "melt", as it were, into the period of remand
under section 309 CrPC without a hiatus. However, where, upon
the filing of the charge-sheet, while cognizance is taken, an order
of remand under section 309(2) CrPC is not passed immediately
but after a few days or so, there appears to be a chasm between
a valid detention order under section 167 CrPC and a remand to
custody order under section 309(2) CrPC. But, in reality there is
no such "break". It only appears to be so because of the
assumption that as soon as the Magistrate takes cognizance of
the offences, the remand order passed under section 167 Cr.P.C
gets extinguished This assumption is faulty. Once the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken, it is true, the investigation
having come to an end, recourse to the power under section 167
cannot be taken. But, that does not mean that an order validly

made under section 167(2) terminates the instant the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken. Such an order would be
valid till the duration for which it is made does not expire or till it
is replaced by a remand order under section 309 CrPC, whatever's
earlier in point of time.
"In cases of grant of bail, the validity of the earlier orders of
remand can certainly be taken into consideration. In such cases if
there was illegality in the earlier orders of remand, it cannot be
validated by a subsequent valid order of remand, KUDAL J.
RATI RAM

V.

STATE

OF

IN

RAJASTHAN 1982RAJASTHAN LR 443 has

held "once and order of remand expires and a fresh order of

remand is not passed then the detention becomes illegal. The
liberty of an individual is guaranteed under the provisions of the
Constitution. By a subsequent order of remand for a subsequent
period, the previous order of detention which was patently illegal
cannot be cured. The detention of the accused persons cannot be
justified under any provision of law. Thus, they are entitled o be
enlarged on bail."
K. D. SHARMA, CHIEF JUSTICE

IN

NARAYAN

V.

STATE

OF

RAJASTHAN 1982 R AJASTHAN LR 698: (1982C RI LJ 2319) has

also taken the view that once period of 90 days expired before
taking cognizance of offences by Court, accused obtained
absolute right to be released on bail and their detention after
such period, held clearly illegal and it cannot be validated by a
subsequent order of remand under Section 309, Cr.P.C. We also
subscribe the view already taken by two learned single Judge o
this Court..."But, the conclusion of the Division Bench is based on
the premises that the earlier order of remand was illegal or that
the earlier order of remand had expired or that the period
prescribed Under SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA
DELHI)

ON

VS.

STATE (NCT OF

27 JUNE, 2005section 167 CrPC had expired before

the court took cognizance. None of these premises hold true in

the present case. And, therefore, this decision also will be of no
help to the petitioner. As regards the observation that habeas

corpus matters and bail matters stood on different footings, it

would be instructive to note the observations of the supreme
court In UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA
(2001) 5 SCC 453 [ AT

PAGE

V.

STATE

OF

MAHARASHTRA:

471] as to how an indefeasible

right for bail accruing to an accused under section 167(2) CrPC

would continue to be enforceable even after the filing of the
charge-sheet provided, of course, the accused had availed of the
right prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court's
observations in this context, while considering its earlier decision
in Ram Narayan Singh v State of Delhi: AIR 1953 SC 277: 1953 Cri
LJ 1113: 1953 SCR 652

Transit remand:

A transit remand is not specifically defined under the Code.

However, when a warrant of arrest is executed outside the district
in which it was issued, and the court which issued the warrant is
not within 30 km of the place of arrest, then the person arrested
may be produced before Executive Magistrate, District
Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police who shall
direct his removal in custody to such court. In case of bailable
offence such Magistrate/ DSP/ CP shall release the accused on bail
and if the offence is non-bailable it shall be lawful for Chief Judicial
Magistrate or Session Judge to release accused on bail, by
invoking powers under Section 81 proviso (2) subject to the
provision of Section 437 of Cr. P In this regard judgment of
Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Application No.402/2013, in Malti
Ravindra Shah V/s. State of Maharashtra may be referred
regarding powers of granting transit remand.

REMAND UNDER NDPS ACT.

The N. D. P. S. Act, as it stands after the amendment of 2001 (w.

e. f. 2/10/2001), provides for constitution of Special Court, for
trying all offences under the Act which are punishable with
imprisonment for a term of more than three years. Provisions of
remand under the General 22 Of 27 Code are modified by virtue
of Section 36A (1) (b) of this Act, which provides that a person
accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under
the Act be forwarded to a Magistrate under sub Section 2 or sub
Section 2A of Section167 of the Code. Whereupon, Magistrate
may authorize the detention of such person in such custody as he
thinks fit for a period not exceeding 15 days and 7days in a whole
where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate. In case of
offences triable by the Special Court, the proviso to the said
sub section provides that when such person forwarded to
him; or upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of
detention

authorized

by

him,

the Magistrate considers

the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order

such person to be forwarded to the Special Court having
jurisdiction.When such person is so forwarded to the Special
Court, the Special Court exercises all the powers of remand
conferred on Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code.
22.

Thus, under N. D. P. S. Act, for the offences triable

by the Special

Court, first remand is done by the Magistrate

and subsequent orders of remand are passed by the Special

Court. The offences for small quantity of contraband are
punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to six months or a
fine of Rs. 10,000/ or both, which offences are triable by the
Magistrate and hence Magistrate exercises powers of remand
under Section 167 and 309 (2) of the Code. The period of remand
of 90 days under Section 167 of the Code is modified with a
period of 180 days, only for the offences under Section 19 or
Section 24 or Section 27A or for offences involving commercial
quantity
Section 36 A.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-(a) xxxx
(b) Xxxx
(c) Xxxx
(d) Xxxx
(2) Xxxx
(3) Xxxx
(4) In respect of persons accused of an offence punishable under
Section
19 or Section 24 or section 27 A or for offences
involving commercial
Quantity the references in sub-section (2) of section 167
of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), thereof to ninety days,
where they occur,
Shall be construed as reference to one hundred and eighty days:
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation
within
Said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special
Court may
Extend the said period up to one year on the report of
the Public
Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and
the specific
Reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said
period of one
Hundred and eighty days.
(5) Xxxx
9. The maximum period of 90 days fixed under Section
167 (2) of the
Code has been increased to 180 days for several categories
of offences
Under the Act but the proviso authorizes a yet further
period of detention
Which may in total go up to one year, provided the
stringent conditions

Provided therein are satisfied and are complied with. The conditions
provided
Are:
(1) A report of the public prosecutor,
(2) Which indicates the progress of the investigation, and
(3) Specifies the compelling reasons for seeking the detention
of the Accused
Beyond the period of 180 days, and
(4) After notice to the accused.

Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 36A has to be construed in

relation to the subject matter covered by the said Section. The
general Rule in construing an enactment which contains a proviso
is to construe them together without making either of them
redundant or otiose.
In other words, the language of a proviso, even if general, should
be normally construed in relation to the subject-matter covered
by the Section to which the proviso is so appended Accused.

REMAND IN CASE OF UAPA (UNLAWFUL

PREVENTION ACTIVITIES) 1967
The unlawful activities(prevention) amendment act,2008 has
been brought into the statute book with the same object to cob
Investigation related to alleged offences committed under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 continued, Section 43D
of the said Act permitted the designated Court to extend the
period of detention to 180 days, and before 90days period of
detention 43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the
Code.

- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other

law, every
Offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a
cognizable

Offence Within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the

Code, and
"Cognizable
(a) The references to "fifteen days", "ninety days" and sixty
days le
Case" as defined in that clause shall be construed
accordingly.

(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case

involving an offence
Punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in
sub-section (2),- ",
Wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to
thirty days", "ninety
Days" and "ninety days" respectively; and

(b) After the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted,

namely:"Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the
investigation within
the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied
with the report of
the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the
investigation and the
specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the
said period of
ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and
eighty days:

Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation

under this Act,

requests, for the purposes of investigation, for

police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial

custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and
shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.

(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving
an offence
Punishable under this Act subject to the modification that- (a) the
reference in
Sub section (1) thereof(i) To "the State Government" shall be construed as a reference to
"the Central
Government or the State Government"
(ii) To "order of the State Government" shall be construed as a
reference to "order
Of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case
may be"; and (b) the
Reference in sub-section (2)thereof, to "the State Government"
shall be construed
As a reference to "the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case
May be".
(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any
case involving the
Arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence
punishable under this
Act.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person
accused of an offence
Punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in
custody, be released on

Bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity of
Being heard on the application for such release:
Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or
on his own bond
If the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under
section 173 of
The Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the
Accusation against such person is prima facie true.

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in

addition to the
Restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in
force on granting
Of bail.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6),
no bail shall be
Granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this
Act, if he is an
Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorized or
illegally except in very
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing.

Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code says 15 days

automatic remand; 90 days in the case of punishment with death
or imprisonment for life and 60 days in any other case. The period
of custody in Cr P.C 15, 90 and 60 are being replaced by 30, 90
and 90, that is, 15 becomes 30, 90 remains 90 and 60 becomes
90. In these cases it is not possible to complete the investigation

within the 60 days period for an offence where the punishment is

not life imprisonment.
By virtue of the aforesaid modification to the provisions of
Section167 (2) Cr.P.C. the period of 90 days stipulated for
completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet. The Centre
of gravity of the first proviso to sub-Section 2 of Section 43D of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It reads: Provided
further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation
within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is
satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the
progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the
detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days,
extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days and
along with the application a report of the learned Public
prosecutor.
The requirement of the proviso is that if it is not possible to
complete the investigation within the period of 90 days, if the
Court is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor that the
progress of the investigation detention of the accused beyond
period of 90 days but up to 180 days, the Court may permit so
Indisputably the mandate of the law warrants : (i) a satisfaction
to be recorded by the Court; (ii) with reference to the report of the
Public Prosecutor; and (iii) which report must indicate the progress
of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of
the accused beyond 90 days up to 180 days. The exercise of such
power must not be an automatic and is not mere matter of
formality but not be an automatic and is not mere matter of
formality but it is of considerable importance in as much the
consequence of such order would trample thee personal liberty of
a citizen before his trial and ought to be exercised very sparingly
and in exceptional cases.

REMAND IN CASE OF TADA

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985 (TADA):
TADA which was in effect until 1995, and whose remnants
continue to remain in place, defined a series of new, substantive
terrorism related offenses of general applicability, which could be
prosecuted by state governments throughout the country without
any central government designation that the area in which the
offence took place was terrorist affected
Period of Detention (Remand) during Investigation
Section 167 of the CrPC provides that whenever any person is
arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the
investigation cannot be completed within a period of twenty four
hours and there are grounds for believing that the FIR is well
founded, the officer in charge of the police station shall produce
the accused before the nearest Magistrate. On production of such
accused, it has been stipulated that such Magistrate may
authorize the detention of the accused in such custody for a term
not exceeding fifteen days.
(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused
person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the
period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds
exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention
of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding
(i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a term of not less than ten years;
(ii). sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other
offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or
sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and
every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be

deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII

for the purposes of that chapter.
(b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under
this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in
this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the
custody of the police
From the above provisions it is clear that a magistrate may order
that an accused may be kept in police custody for a maximum
period of fifteen days. Beyond this period, the accused may be
kept in judicial custody for a maximum period of ninety days or
sixty days Combatting Terrorism Dealing with Terrorism depending
upon the nature of the alleged crime. In TADA, the time periods of
fifteen days, ninety days and sixty days are replaced by
sixty days, one hundred eighty days and one hundred eighty
days respectively. Thus, the period of remand under TADA was
extended beyond what has been stipulated in the CrPC. Similarly,
Section 49 of POTA provided that the references to fifteen days,
ninety days and sixty days, wherever they occur, shall be
construed as references to thirty days, ninety days and
ninety days, respectively. Provided further that if it is not
possible to complete the investigation within the said period of
ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period up to
one hundred and eighty days, on the report of the Public
Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the
specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said
period of ninety days. After the repeal of POTA, similar provisions
have not been incorporated in the Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act. Thus, the provisions of both TADA and POTA provided for
extended periods of remand. It has been argued that these
provisions enabling extended periods of remand could result in
unnecessary detentions and therefore the provisions of CrPC
should be adhered to. On the other hand, the investigating
agencies are of the view that these provisions of extended

remand are necessary in cases involving terrorist related offences

as people rarely come forward to depose because of fear of
retribution. Also, there are complex crime networks sometimes
involving transnational links and therefore these may require
longer period of remand for successful investigation. The
Commission agrees that in terrorist related offences, witnesses
are generally reluctant to depose because of fear of reprisals and
also that investigating such cases are usually more complex and
time consuming than ordinary crimes.. This could necessitate a
more intense and prolonged investigation by the police. Therefore
the time limits specified under the CrPC may not be adequate. At
the same time the limits prescribed under TADA were longer than
required. POTA tried to achieve a fine balance as far as these time
limits were concerned. Therefore, the Commission feels that the
provisions of POTA regarding remand and completion of
investigation may be restored and incorporated in the new law.

REMAND IN CASE OF POTA

Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) of 2002
TADA was replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) of
2002. POTA had a number of controversial elements of TADA. In
2004 the government repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act
(POTA) and replaced it with the strengthened 1967 Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The sunset provisions also
allowed the government to make new arrests under POTA, despite
its repeal, if the arrests were tied to an existing POTA case. The
period of remand under POTA can be extended up to one year.
The provision of the UAPA is pari matria to POTA and TADA.
Section 49(2) (b) The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted,

namely: Provided further that if it is not possible to complete
the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special
Court shall extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty
days, on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the
progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the
detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days:
Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation
under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for
police custody from judicial custody of any person from judicial
custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so
and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police
custody..

COMPLAINT OF ILL-TREATMENT AND PROCEDRE TO BE

FOLLOWED

Custodial violence is worst form of human rights violation which

has become very serious and alarming problem. Torture
denotes intense suffering physical, mental and psychological,
aimed at forcing someone to do or say something against his or
her will. It means an attempt to break down detainee under
severe physical pain and extreme psychological pressure. The
suspect is detained in some isolated place beyond reach of family,
friends and legal assistance. Interrogators control everything,
even life. The torture is not called torture for obvious reasons, by

those who practice it. It goes under the names of "sustained

interrogation" 'questioning' or "examining". Whatever the name
be, brutalization is the result always. In the words of Honble
Krishna Iyer , Justice V. R. "We are deeply disturbed by the
diabolical recurrence of
police torture resulting in a terrible scare in the minds of common
citizens, that
their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of
the law gore
human rights to death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes
a traumatic,
torture some poignancy (when) violent violations is perpetrated
by the police
arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizens and not
to commit
gruesome offenses against them. The state, at the highest
administrative and
political levels is expected to organize special strategy to prevent
and punish
brutality by the police methodology. Otherwise, the credibility and
the rule of
law in our republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will
deteriorate. There is urgency of stamping out the vice of third
degree from the investigative armory of the police". Although
safeguards are put in place to protect the rights of accused on his
arrest, there is no specific provision in the code as to what
procedure is to be followed if any accused alleges ill-treatment at
the hands of police on his arrest or during his custody. Criminal
Manual has provided a mechanism for the same.
Procedure in complaint of ill-treatment:

It is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate, whenever a

person arrested is produced before him by police or investigation
agency for remand to inquire to every arrestee about ill-treatment
by police. If any complaint of ill- treatment is made by accused
or prisoner procedure to be followed by Magistrate is given in
para no.3 of Chapter 1 of Criminal Manual If any accused or
prisoner makes allegation of ill-treatment to the Magistrate then
Magistrate shall examine the prisoner's body if the prisoner
consents. Magistrate has to see personally if there are any marks
of injuries as
alleged, and shall place on record the reason of his examination. If
the prisoner refuses to permit Magistrate for such examination, he
shall record such refusal and reasons thereof. If the Magistrate
finds substance in allegation of ill treatment he shall first record
the complaint of prisoner, and forward the prisoner for medical
examination to Medical Officer or Registered Medical Practitioner
as provided in section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973, and shall make report to the Hon'ble Sessions Judge. If
magistrate has no power to take make necessary inquiry himself,
he should forward the prisoner with the record to the Judicial
Magistrate having jurisdiction to investigation the case.
Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides
that Magistrate shall at the request of arrested person direct the
examination of the body of such arrested persons by a registered
Medical Practitioner in case of his allegation before him that
such examination of his body will afford evidence which will
disprove the commission by him of any offence or which will
establish the commission by any other person of any offence
against his body.

If prisoner forwarded by Magistrate to Medical Officer or

Registered Medical Practitioner for examination, such Medical
Officer shall examine the prisoner and make report to that
effect. In report, Medical Practitioner has to mention the nature

of injuries, age of injuries, marks of injuries and shall forward such

report to the Judicial Magistrate concerned, and also to the
Hon'ble Sessions Judge, with his opinion and also state whether
the prisoner makes any allegations in regard to the injuries
against police or others responsible for his arrest or custody, or
state how else the prisoner explain them.
Thereafter Honorable Sessions Judge after satisfaction on
receipt of report from Magistrate and also report from Medical
Officer should arrange for an immediate magisterial investigation
into the complaint through such Judicial Magistrate as he may
deem most convenient.
Result of such investigation must be communicated as
early as possible to the court seized of substantive case. If it
considers necessary, the court may summon the Medical Officer
or the registered Medical practitioner to give evidence in the case.
A complaint in respect of ill-treatment was made by the accused
before the Magistrate. The Magistrate on making preliminary
inquiry had submitted positive report to the Hon'ble Sessions
Court regarding ill-treatment. The Hon'ble Sessions Court had
directed the said Magistrate to launch the prosecution as per law.
The said Magistrate filed complaint against the accused before
another Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued
process against the accused. The said accused preferred Writ
Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay praying to quash
the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint
filed by the Magistrate. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in
the said case Yadavrao Chavan .Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, Criminal Application No.1494/2013 has observed that
there was no specific prohibition or bar in law to take cognizance
of the alleged offence on the basis of the complaint lodged by the
Magistrate. There was also no legal bar or prohibition on the
lodging of the complaint by the Magistrate and the question
would only be of

propriety and regularity. In any case, the Magistrate has clearly

acted in good faith thinking himself to be acting in his official
capacity and as per the directions given by the Sessions Judge to
whom he was subordinate. The institution of the proceeding
against the applicant/accused is not shown to be barred under the
provisions of any law. It is not that the complaint does not
disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, or that it is not
supported by the material collected by the Magistrate/respondent
no.2.

Other relevant provisions in respect of ill-treatment in the

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 : -

Section 53 - According to Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure

Code the police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector can
request the registered Medical Practitioner to medically examine
an arrested person under certain circumstance, and if he is
unwilling to undergo it, the Section empowers the Medical
Practitioner and his assistants to use such force has reasonably
necessary making the medical examination.

Section 53 A :- Examination of person accused of rape by

Medical Practitioner Amendment Act 2005 provide for a detailed medical
examination of a person accused of an offence of rape or an
attempt to commit rape by a registered Medical Practitioner
employed in a Hospital run by the Government or by a local
authority and in the absence of such practitioner within the radius
of 16 km from the place where the offence has been committed
by any other Medical registered practitioner.
Section 54 - Examination of arrested person by Medical
Officer Amendment Act 2008 Clause 8 substitutes Section 54
relating to Officer. Examination of the arrested person by Medical

The amendment makes it obligatory on the part of the states to

have the arrested person examined by a medical Officer in the
service of central or state governments and in case of Medical
Officer is not available by a registered Medical Practitioner soon
after the arrest is made. It also provides that where the arrested
person is female the examination of the body shall be made only
by or under the supervision of female Medical Officer, in case
female Medical Officer is not available by female registered
practitioner. Such Medical Officer shall prepare the record of such
examination, mentioning therein any injuries or marks of violence
upon the person arrested, and approximate time when such
injuries or marks may have been inflicted.
Section 55 A - Health and Safety of an arrested Person
Amendment Act 2008 Clause 9 inserts a new Section 55A so as to
make it obligatory on the part of person having the custody of
accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the
accused. Section 176 - Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death
Amendment Act, 2005, Section 176 is being amended to provide
that in the case of death or disappearance of a person, or rape of
a woman while in the custody of the police, there shall be a
mandatory judicial inquiry and in case of death, examination of
the dead body shall be conducted within twenty- four hours of
death.

CONCLUSION
The Magistrate must record the complaint of ill-treatment made
by accused. Police are duty bound to conduct the medical
examination of accused prior to arrest. The Magistrate must if
consented by the accused examine the person of the accused and
note the injuries if any. The Magistrate must then send the
accused for medical examination to a registered medical
practitioner. On receipt of the report from the medical officer,
Magistrate can compare both the reports and reach to conclusion.
If substance is found in the allegation of the accused he is to be
taken in magisterial custody. The complaint lodged by the
accused must be treated as a private complaint and it must be
sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance. The
Magistrate is also duty bound to send the report (giving
information about the allegation and not to send the entire
complaint) to Hon'ble Sessions Court. If
the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance has not
proceeded in accordance with Chapter XV, the Session Court may
direct the Magistrate accordingly.

LIST OF CASE LAWS

1.

Ram Doss ..v/s... State of Tamilnadu, 1993 Cr.L.J. 2147

2.

Shrawan Waman Nade vs. State of Maharashtra.

1994 (1)

MAH.L.J. 220

3.

Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303,

4.

Manubhail Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujrat and others

(2013) 1

SCC 314,

5.

ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

(2014) 8 SCC 273,

6.

C.B.I. V/s Anupam Kumar (2000) 9 Supreme

Court Cases

page 266,

7.

Changat Satyanarayanam and ors V/s State of Andhra

Pradesh

(1986 ) 3 SCC 141.

8.

Uday Mohanlal Acharya V/s. State of Mahatrahstra AIR

2001 SC

1010

REAMAND IN CASE OF UAPA, TADA, POTA, TADA, MCOCA

UAPA

(UNLAWFUL PREVENTION ACTIVITIES ACT)

The Congress Party introduced the UAPA at a time when the State
of India was in turmoil. Indira Gandhis grip on power was under
threat. India had only just emerged from wars with both China,
and Pakistan, the economy was in crisis, the political system was
in crisis, and the Congress Party itself was in crisis. There were
new strands of opposition emerging, and gaining in strength. The
Congress Party could not see how to avoid their inevitable failure
at the next election, so they created an atmosphere whereby,
anyone who raised a voice was labeled as an enemy of the State,
and then could be booked under the UAPA.