SCR.A/16498/2023 of RAMESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI SOLANKI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 29 December 2023

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Harshit S. Tolia, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.J.K.Shah and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APPs appearing forthe respondent State. Learned advocate Mr. Harshil Dattani and Mr.Abhishek Sharma have instructions to appear on behalf of theoriginal complainant and thereby, seek permission to file theirVakalatnama, which is granted.

2. Rule. Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective respondentswaive service of Rule.

3. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for thefollowing main reliefs:- “(A)Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ,order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside theimpugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Ld. JMFC,Talala, District Gir-Somnath at Annexure-A thereby grantingpolice remand against the petitioner in connection with FIRbeing C.R.No.11186007230792/2023 registered with Talala Police Station for the offence u/s. 306, 114 of IPC and U/s. 40,42(d) of Gujarat Money Lenders Act, in the interest of justice; (B)Your Lordshipsbe pleased to stay theimplementation, operation and execution of the impugnedorder dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Talala, DistrictGir-Somnath at Annexure-A thereby granting police remandagainst the petitioner in connection with FIR beingC.R.No.11186007230792/2023 registered with Talala PoliceStation for the offence u/s. 306, 114 of IPC and U/s. 40, 42(d) ofGujarat Money Lenders Act, pending the admission, hearing andfinal disposal of this petition, in the interest of justice.”

4. Mr.A.C. Sindhav, Police Sub-Inspector, Talala Police Station,Dist. Gir-Somnath is personally present before the Court.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, oninstructions, fairly submits that the petitioner is ready and willing togive his voice sample as well as vehicle in question, which wasallegedly used in commission of offence, for the purpose of forensicexamination. He further submits that the petitioner will alsohandover his mobile handset for the said purpose.

6. Ld. advocate Mr. Tolia contended that the petitioner is readyand willing to fully cooperate and will remain present before theinvestigating officer and therefore, no custodial interrogation of thepetitioner is required, that too for getting incriminating evidence byuse of third degree and torture.

7. Having heard learned advocates and going through the factsof the case, it appears that the accused had given Rs.5 lacs to the deceased/prosecution witness and against the same, the accusedhad received two blank cheques/stamp paper, which need to berecovered from the accused and for that purpose, custodialinterrogation is required for some limited time period. Further,accused No.1 was also remanded to the police custody.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for therespective parties and considering the broad consensus of thelearned advocates, without further discussion on merit, period of 3days custodial interrogation granted by learned Trial Court is herebyreduced to 2 days (48 hours). Further, it is clarified that prior tosuch 48 hours, if custodial interrogation is over and presence ofpetitioner is no longer required, then investigating officer is directedto release the petitioner forthwith.

9. Further, investigating officer is directed to scrupulously followthe directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofD.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 AIRSC 610 during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner andensure that no instance of violation of human rights is taken place.

10. With the above observation and direction, present petition isdisposed of. The petitioner is directed to remain present before theInvestigating Officer on 01.01.2024 at 11.00 a.m. without fail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted today.

KUMAR ALOK/SUCHIT

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)