Justice P Murugan dismissed the petitions filed by the officers challenging the remand order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District. The petitions were filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police and two officers below the rank of Sub Inspector.

The case relates to the death of a 26-year-old temple guard, Akash, allegedly due to injuries suffered by him while in custody over a false case. The investigation was transferred to the CBI and in its supplementary chargesheet, the CBI had named the present petitioners. After framing of charges and questioning the accused, the trial court had sent the petitioners to judicial custody. Challenging this, the petitioners had filed the present batch of pleas.

While dismissing the pleas, the court held that when the power of the judge to remand the petitioners was not challenged, the appropriate remedy would be to move the bail jurisdiction and not to challenge the remand order. The court added that the petitioners could not seek to set aside the remand order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

“In the present case, the accused merely challenging the order of remand under section 528 of BNSS without approaching bail jurisdiction is not correct way. Once the accused have been remanded to judicial custody with a reasoned order, they must work out their remedy before the appropriate forum for bail and cannot seek to have the remand order be set aside by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 528 of BNSS,” the court said.

The petitioners had argued that the trial court's order was incorrect as the petitioners were not in custody at the time of passing the order. It was also argued that as per the Supreme Court's order in the Satendra Kumar Antil case, the petitioners need not file a separate application for bail. He argued that the remand order, on the ground that no separate bail application had been filed, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that the trial court's finding that they would tamper with the witnesses was unsustainable in law, particularly when none of the prosecution witnesses had spoken anything about the role played by the petitioners.

It was argued that the trial court had not considered that the investigating agency did not arrest the petitioner during the course of investigation as there was no requirement of custodial interrogation and in the absence of any subsequent developments demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation, the remand was unjustified.

The Court, however, observed that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to move for bail rather than seeking to set aside the remand order.

“It is not the case of the accused that the Court has no power to remand them to judicial custody. If they seek to challenge the remand order passed by the Court concerned, they may work out their remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, rather than seeking to set aside the remand order by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 528 of BNSS,” the court said.

The court also noted that there were 146 witnesses, 123 documents and 49 articles to be placed as evidence in the case and directed the trial court to dispose of the case within 9 months. The court also added that if the petitioners adopt any tactics to delay the trial, the trial court could pass appropriate orders.

“this Court directs the trial court taking note of 146 witnesses, 123 documents and 49 articles to be placed as evidence expedite the trial and dispose the case within a period of nine months from the date of copy of this order. All the accused are directed to co-operate the trial Court to expedite the trial. If the accused adopt any delay in tactics, it is left open to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of examination of the witnesses,” the court said.

Thus, the court dismissed the petitions and confirmed the remand order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocate for Mr.A.Balaji, Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Senior Advocate M/s Roy and Roy Associates, Mr.S.Chellapandian Senior Advocate ... For M/s. S. Bageerathan, Mr.A.Raja For Mr.C.M. Arumugam

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, Mrs.Nithya Ramakrishnan Senior Advocate, Assisted by Mr.Henry Patrick Triphange