Police Must Show Arrest & Remand Of Accused In All Connected Cases: Telangana High Court Grants Doctor Bail In Surrogacy-Fraud FIRs

Granting bail to a doctor booked for surrogacy-related offences, the Telangana High Court said that once an accused is in judicial custody in the first case, then it is necessary for the investigating authorities to show the arrest and remand of the accused in all connected cases, from the respective dates of registration of FIRs.The petitioner contended that she was implicated in several crimes registered on the file of Gopalapuram Police Station, all of which arise out of the same or substantially similar transactions. It was contended that since the offences alleged in the connected crimes are analogous in nature and stem from the similar set of facts, the period of custody in the "first case" ought to have been reckoned as deemed custody in the other cases as well. The court was considering whether the petitioner's custody in one case can be treated as deemed custody in other cases, where no formal arrest or remand was shown. Justice N. Tukaramji observed that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings arising from allegations relating to acts committed under the guise of surrogacy arrangements. The court said that as per the prosecution, the allegations represent three distinct facets of fraudulent conduct, however, it was not disputed that all these facets pertain to transactions concerning surrogacy and are "therefore connected in substance". It said:“The record clearly indicates that the petitioner was already in judicial custody as of 27.07.2025, and that the subsequent offences stem from the same series of transactions/chain of events. Consequently, as the petitioner was in the custody by the date of registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), it was incumbent upon the investigating authorities to show the arrest and remand of the petitioner in all the connected cases from the respective dates of registration of the FIRs. Their omission to do so not only reflect a lack of due diligence and non-application of mind but also runs contrary to the settled position of law governing computation of the statutory period for the purpose of default bail.”It referred to Tupakula Appa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh where it was held that custody contemplates presence of the accused under the jurisdiction of the Court and may extend by implication to other connected crimes arising out of the same police station and set of facts. It had said that where an accused is in custody in one case, and multiple cases arise from the same police station or the same set of facts, failure of the authorities to formally show arrest in each case, when such arrest could and ought to have been shown, cannot prejudice the accused. The Court had observed that if the omission is attributable to the negligence of the authorities, the "custody in one case shall be deemed custody in all connected cases, thereby protecting the liberty of the accused". Referring to Supreme Court judgments the court said that right to statutory or default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (now Section 187(3) BNSS) is an indefeasible right accruing to the accused upon the expiry of the prescribed period of detention, if the charge sheet has not been filed. It further said, "The computation of such period must necessarily commence from the date of the first remand or the initial custody, and not from any subsequent or artificially regularized date of arrest". The offences alleged against the petitioner were under section 61(2) [criminal conspiracy], 316(2) [criminal breach of trust], 318(4) [cheating], 335 (making false documents), 336 (criminal forgery), 340 (fraudulent use of a forged document or electronic record) and 111 (fraudulent use of a forged document or electronic record) of BNS read with section 39(1) and 40 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.It was submitted that once the petitioner was in judicial custody in one of the related cases, the investigating agency was under a duty to reflect the remand period uniformly across all such similar crimes. The failure of the police to do so, by not showing the petitioner as being in custody in the present cases, has resulted in a procedural irregularity affecting the petitioner's statutory right under Section 187(3) of the BNSS to seek statutory bail.It was contended that the while the trial court had granted statutory bail to the petitioner in Crime Nos. 94, 96, and 97 of 2025 (FIRs) on the same reasoning, however, in the present set of cases (Crime Nos. 99 to 102 of 2025), the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the date of first remand-i.e., 27.07.2025 was decisive for computing the period of custody for the purpose of determining whether the statutory period for filing the final report had expired. The trial court had held that statutory period for filing the charge sheet had not yet expired. The prosecution argued, that the crimes involve serious and heinous offences of considerable gravity, that the investigation was still in progress owing multifaceted nature of the transactions.It...

Police Must Show Arrest & Remand Of Accused In All Connected Cases: Telangana High Court Grants Doctor Bail In Surrogacy-Fraud FIRs

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags