The following points are required to be noted while granting remand:-
1) Efforts must be made by the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within 24hours as fixed by section 57 of the Said Code.
2) If such completion is not possible and there are grounds for believing that the accusation/information is well founded the officer must forthwith forward the accused to the nearest Judicial Magistrate with a copy of the relevant entries.
3) The Magistrate,who receives such information,may authorize the detention of the accused for a maximum period of 15 days whether or not he has jurisdiction to try the case.
4)Such detention during the initial period of 15 days may be either in judicial custody or in police custody is the discretion of the Magistrate.Magistrate having no jurisdiction must forward the accused to the .
5) Beyond the period of 15 days, there cannot be any remand to police custody.
6) Thereafter,if the Magistrate having jurisdiction is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused otherwise than in police custody for a period of 15 days at a time. Such detention cannot exceed the total period of 90 days or 60 days
as the case may be.
7) If within the said period of 90 days or 60 days the final report is not filed,the accused has an indefeasible right to be released form custody.
8) Thereafter he can be remanded to custody by the Magistrate only of he is not in a position to offer bail.
9) When the accused is so released under the proviso to Sec. 167(2) of the Said Code , it shall be deemed that such release is under Chapter 33 of the Code.
10) Such bail is also liable to be cancelled under Sec. 437(5) or Sec. 439(2) of the Said Code as the case may be.
11) If the final report was filed after 60 or 90 days as the case may and the accused has not availed such indefeasible right to be released on bail before the final report is filed, he cannot claim such right to be released on bail.
12) It is duty of Magistrate to inform accused his right of bail by default even in serious cases. i.e. when charge sheet is not filed within prescribed period.
13) The period of detention if ordered by the Executive Magistrate is to be counted.
14) The word custody includes surveillance, restriction and not necessarily in hand .
15) The object of remand is to avoid possible abuse by police and to facilitate investigation and not to coerce the accused.
16) The Magistrate must ensure that the arrest is justified.
17) It has been normal allegations of accused that he is made to visit police station and police make him wait and register his arrest thereafter.Therefore, magistrate must be careful and keep check and balance.
18) In normal circumstances Magistrate must assist the production of accused.
19) The object of remand is to enable the Magistrate to see if remand is a necessary and to enable the accused to make representation and Magistrate has to pass a judicial order.
20) If during the course of custody, commission of different crime is brought to light, accused can be detained for different offence.
21) Remand means sending the accused back
22) Magistrate should check the time of arrest as required under article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India to ensure that accused is produced within 24 hours.
23) If accused makes an allegation of torture inquiry has to be conducted.Here the role of the Hon’ble Sessins Judge come into play.
24) In case Magistrate lacks jurisdiction over the matter, Magistrate has to forward the record to appropriate forum.
25) Total period of 60 days or 90 days has to be calculated from the date of remand and not arrest.
26) Magistrate must see its powers under special statute before granting remand.
27) It is duty of Magistrate to provide legal aid to accused even when accused is produced for first time before the Magistrate as per direction of the Hon’ble supreme court in Criminal Appeal Nos 1899-1900 of 2011 in case of Mohammed Ajamal Mohammed Amir Kasab alias Abu Mujahid
v/s State of Maharashtra and also circular dt: 8.11.2012 of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court.
( Cr Law Journal 1994 160)
AIR 1980 SC 785
1984 CRLJ 160