Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the order dated 6th December 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act), Pune, rejecting the State's application for police custody remand of the respondent/accused, Varsha Shankarrao Phadke, and instead remanding her to judicial custody till 27th December 2016. The respondent was implicated in Crime No.477 of 2015 registered at Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, involving 12 accused, with chargesheet filed against three on 2nd June 2016. Two absconding accused, Rani Prabhakar Nair and Jyoti Nair, were traced on 21st November 2016. The Investigating Officer sought permission to arrest them, but the respondent filed a false affidavit claiming proceedings were stayed. The State argued that the respondent committed an offence under Section 3(3) of the MCOC Act by harbouring offenders and filing a false affidavit, and that there was evidence from confidential witnesses and intercepted calls showing her membership in an organized crime syndicate. The learned APP contended that the Special Judge failed to consider grounds 1 to 7 of the remand application and erroneously held that the respondent was not booked under Sections 3(1)(i) or 3(1)(ii). The court heard the submissions and examined the impugned order. The court noted that the respondent was already in judicial custody and that the State sought police custody after the nature of custody had changed. The court held that the Special Judge's order was not perverse and that the State failed to demonstrate any new grounds warranting police custody. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Custody Remand - Section 167 CrPC - After accused is remanded to judicial custody, police custody can only be granted if new grounds are shown - The State sought police custody of the respondent/accused after she was already in judicial custody. The court held that the Special Judge's order was not perverse and that the State failed to demonstrate any new grounds warranting police custody. (Paras 1-10) B) MCOCA - Membership of Organized Crime Syndicate - Section 3(3) MCOC Act, 1999 - Harbouring offenders - The State argued that the respondent/accused harboured offenders and filed a false affidavit, but the court noted that the respondent was not booked under Sections 3(1)(i) or 3(1)(ii) and that the evidence of membership was not sufficient to justify police custody. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the State's application for police custody remand of the respondent/accused and instead remanding her to judicial custody.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Special Judge is upheld.
Law Points
- Police custody remand cannot be granted after accused is already in judicial custody unless new grounds are shown
- MCOCA Section 3(3) requires evidence of membership in organized crime syndicate
- Remand application must be considered on its own merits
