Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, decided two petitions—a criminal petition by the State of Karnataka and a writ petition by the complainant Hyder Ali—both challenging an order dated 04-12-2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (III Court) Mangalore. The Magistrate had rejected the prosecution's requisition for grant of police custody of accused nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No. 150 of 2024 registered at Kavoor Police Station. The crime was registered on 06-10-2024 following the suicide of the complainant's brother, alleging offences under Sections 190, 308(2), 308(5), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). During investigation, several accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and some were earlier granted police custody for limited periods. The Investigating Officer subsequently sought police custody of certain accused after obtaining voice samples, but the Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), police custody must be sought within 40 days from the first remand, and the period had lapsed. The core legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of Section 187(3) of BNSS, which governs the duration of police custody and the time limit for completing investigation. Section 187(3)(i) applies to offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, allowing a maximum investigation period of 90 days and police custody during the first 60 days. Section 187(3)(ii) covers 'any other offence', permitting investigation up to 60 days and police custody within the first 40 days. The petitioners contended that the offences alleged, particularly abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, carry a maximum punishment of ten years, and therefore the expression 'may extend to ten years' should be treated as 'ten years or more', thereby falling within clause (i). The respondents argued that 'may extend to ten years' does not equate to 'ten years or more', as the sentence could be less than ten years, and hence clause (ii) applies. The Court, after examining the statutory provisions, found that the words 'may extend to ten years' denote the maximum sentence a court may impose, but it can also be lower, unlike the mandatory term of ten years or more contemplated in clause (i). The phrase 'imprisonment for a term of ten years or more' in clause (i) implies a minimum of ten years, whereas 'may extend to ten years' permits a variable term. Consequently, the offences alleged fall under clause (ii), and police custody could be sought only within the initial 40 days of remand. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, which distinguished between offences punishable with imprisonment for a 'term of ten years or more' and those with a lesser maximum, and concluded that since the 40-day period had expired, the Magistrate rightly rejected the application. The additional submission regarding a pending application to add Section 140(2) BNS (punishable with death or life imprisonment) was held to be a separate matter for the Magistrate to decide on its merits, not affecting the impugned order. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the Magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Police Custody under Section 187 BNSS - Interpretation of 'imprisonment for a term of ten years or more' versus 'may extend to ten years' - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 187(3)(i) and (ii) - The Court held that offences punishable with imprisonment that 'may extend to ten years' fall under clause (ii) of Section 187(3) as they are for a term of less than ten years, because the maximum term is not fixed at ten years but could be any term up to ten years; thus, the period for completing investigation is 60 days and police custody must be sought within 40 days from first remand; after 40 days, the Magistrate cannot grant further police custody. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the rejection of the prosecution's application for police custody filed after 40 days (Paras 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether in an offence punishable with imprisonment which 'may extend to ten years', the police custody can be sought after the expiry of 40 days from the first remand under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Final Decision
Both petitions dismissed; the order of the Magistrate rejecting police custody after 40 days is upheld; the offences alleged fall under Section 187(3)(ii) BNSS and police custody cannot be granted beyond the statutory limit of 40 days.
Law Points
- Interpretation of expression 'imprisonment for a term of ten years or more' in Section 187(3)(i) BNSS
- 2023
- Offences where punishment 'may extend to ten years' fall under clause (ii) as punishment is for a term less than ten years
- Police custody must be sought within 40 days from first remand in such cases
- Investigation period for such offences is 60 days
- Application for police custody beyond 40 days cannot be entertained
- Distinction upheld as per Rakesh Kumar Paul case.
