Surrender Of Absconding Accused After Filing Of Challan Not Grounds For Police Custody When Co-Accused Already Acquitted: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere surrender of an absconding accused after filing of challan does not create a right in favour of the prosecution to seek police custody, particularly when the prosecution rests on the very same evidence on which co-accused have already been acquitted, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held.Justice Sanjay...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere surrender of an absconding accused after filing of challan does not create a right in favour of the prosecution to seek police custody, particularly when the prosecution rests on the very same evidence on which co-accused have already been acquitted, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held.
Justice Sanjay Parihar made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision filed by the State, challenging the refusal of police remand of certain accused who had earlier been declared absconders, and thus reaffirmed the limits on the power of the prosecution to seek custodial interrogation after completion of investigation.
The case had its genesis in an FIR registered for serious offences including murder, attempt to murder, rioting and offences under the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, the police presented a challan before the Sessions Court, Jammu. While several accused faced trial, respondents were not arrested during investigation and were proceeded against as absconders under Section 512 CrPC.
The trial against the available accused culminated in a judgment of acquittal which was later challenged by the State in an acquittal appeal before the High Court. Subsequently, the absconding accused surrendered before the trial court in January 2014.
At that stage, the prosecution moved an application seeking police remand of the surrendered accused for the purpose of further investigation and filing of a supplementary challan, contending that their custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain their specific role in the crime. The Sessions Court, however, declined the request leading the State to file the present criminal revision.
Contentions of the parties
Appearing for the State, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General, argued that since the respondents had absconded during investigation, they were never interrogated earlier and their custodial interrogation was essential even after surrender. It was contended that the trial court had erred in dismissing the remand application on untenable grounds, including the observation that no formal request had been made by the police.
Court's Observations:
Justice Parihar noted that the criminal revision was filed in March 2014 but remained pending for more than a decade without any urgency being shown by the State, despite repeated non-service of the respondents. The Court found this delay to be a relevant factor while examining the maintainability of the revision.
The Court recorded that after surrender, the respondents were formally charged, pleaded not guilty and sought adoption of the evidence already recorded during the earlier trial. On the same evidence, the co-accused had already been acquitted. Following the refusal of police remand, the respondents were eventually acquitted by the trial court on 19.03.2014, the court noted.
Importantly, the High Court observed that once the respondents stood acquitted, the order refusing police remand had merged with the final judgment of acquittal, rendering the criminal revision infructuous.
“In view of the subsequent acquittal of the respondents, the impugned order got merged into the final judgment, rendering the revision infructuous,” the Court observed.
The Court further found that there was no material on record to show that the acquittal dated 19.03.2014 had ever been independently challenged by the State.
A crucial aspect highlighted by the Court was the absence of any request from the investigating agency itself. The record revealed that neither supplementary investigation was sought nor was any formal request made by the police for custodial interrogation of the respondents.
The Court emphasized that once a complete charge-sheet is filed against the accused, it carries an implicit declaration that the investigating agency did not consider further custodial interrogation necessary.
“Once the charge-sheet was filed against all accused, it implied that no further custodial interrogation was considered necessary,” Justice Parihar observed, holding that the trial court's refusal of remand was perfectly in consonance with law.
The court made it abundantly clear that abscondence by itself does not confer an automatic right upon the prosecution to seek police custody after surrender. It remarked,
“Mere surrender of absconding accused after filing of challan does not create a right in favour of the prosecution to seek police custody, especially when the prosecution relies upon the same evidence on which co-accused have already been acquitted,”
Finding no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Sessions Court, and noting that nothing survived in view of the subsequent acquittal of the respondents, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision along with the connected application and directed the trial court record to be returned.
Case Title: State of J&K V/s Dhanwanter Singh and ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)