Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an FIR registered on 18 July 2026 at Mandrem Police Station, Goa, against the petitioner and his father for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following a complaint by an advocate who was allegedly assaulted while executing a demolition order passed by the High Court. The complaint stated that on 17 July 2026, the petitioner wrongfully restrained the complainant and his client, after which a mob including the petitioner, his father, sister, and others armed with stones and iron rods attacked the complainant, damaging his car and causing grievous injuries including a fracture near the eye. The petitioner and his father were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem, on 19 July 2026, who remanded them to police custody until 21 July 2026. The petitioner filed a bail application, which was rejected on merits on 21 July 2026, and the remand was extended to police custody until 28 July 2026. Meanwhile, the Goa High Court Bar Association brought the assault to the notice of a Division Bench of the High Court in pending contempt proceedings, leading to an order on 20 July 2026 directing the investigation to be entrusted to an officer not below the rank of Police Inspector from a different police station. Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the first remand order dated 19 July 2026 on two grounds: first, that the grounds of arrest provided to him were identical to those given to his father, despite their alleged roles being different, violating his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution; and second, that the Magistrate was unduly influenced by the observations of the Division Bench in the contempt matter and failed to independently assess the legality of the arrest or the necessity of police custody. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the challenge was infructuous after the bail rejection and extension of remand, that the offences were based on unlawful assembly with a common object rendering the distinction in roles trivial, and that the Magistrate had correctly exercised discretion in remanding to police custody given the serious nature of the crime and the need for investigation. The Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. It held that once the bail application was rejected on merits and the remand was extended, the challenge to the first remand order became inconsequential and could not be entertained. On merits, the Court observed that the petitioner and co-accused were alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the complainant, and in such circumstances, the precise delineation of individual roles was not significant at that stage, thus identical grounds of arrest did not vitiate the remand. The Court distinguished the case of Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra, noting that it dealt with a lesser offence punishable up to seven years under Section 35(b) of the BNSS, whereas the present case involved offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, attracting Section 35(c) of the BNSS, which does not mandate the same safeguards. The Court further found that the Magistrate had applied her mind independently, recorded reasons for police custody, and there was no evidence that she was unduly influenced by the High Court's observations in the contempt matter. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Legality of First Remand Order - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 35(b), 35(c); Constitution of India, Articles 21, 22(1) - Where an accused's bail application is rejected on merits and remand is extended, a challenge to the initial police custody remand order becomes inconsequential and does not warrant interference at that stage. Held, the petition challenging the first remand order is not maintainable after subsequent rejection of bail and extension of remand (Paras 11-12, 15-16). B) Constitutional Law - Grounds of Arrest - Requirement of Separate Grounds for Co-Accused - Constitution of India, Articles 21, 22(1) - In a case of unlawful assembly with common object, the grounds of arrest need not be distinct for each accused when all participated in the same incident; providing identical grounds does not violate fundamental rights. Held, the alleged violation due to identical grounds is not sustainable as all accused shared common purpose (Paras 8-9, 13-14). C) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Application of Section 35 BNSS - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 35(b), 35(c) - Distinction between Section 35(b) which applies to offences punishable up to seven years, and Section 35(c) for offences punishable over seven years; Chandrashekhar Naik case distinguished as it dealt with lesser offence. Held, since the present offences are punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, Section 35(c) governs and the protection under Section 35(b) does not apply (Paras 11, 14). D) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Magistrate's Discretion - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The Magistrate has discretion to remand an accused to police custody or judicial custody based on necessity for investigation; the order cannot be challenged merely because the Magistrate considered observations of a higher court in related contempt proceedings without showing actual bias. Held, no illegality in remand order as the Magistrate independently assessed the case and found sufficient grounds for police custody (Paras 10, 12, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first remand order was illegal for not providing separate grounds of arrest distinct from co-accused, thereby violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, and whether the Magistrate was unduly influenced by the High Court's observations in contempt proceedings
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, holding that the challenge to the first remand order became inconsequential after the rejection of bail and extension of remand, and that on merits, the grounds of arrest were properly communicated and the Magistrate's order was not illegal.
Law Points
- Remand to police custody under Section 35(c) BNSS for offences punishable over seven years
- challenge to first remand order becomes infructuous after subsequent bail rejection and extension of remand
- when accused share common object in unlawful assembly
- identical grounds of arrest do not violate Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution
- distinction between Section 35(b) and 35(c) of BNSS for offences punishable up to seven years and more
- Magistrate's discretion to remand to police custody depends on facts and necessity of investigation
