Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Police Remand in Theft Case, Holds Complainant Cannot Seek Custodial Interrogation Once Trial Begins

Case Name: Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: CRM-M-11936 of 2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions for police remand of the accused in a theft case, holding that once investigation is complete and the challan is filed, police custody cannot be ordered. Justice Rekha Mittal observed that the complainant cannot demand custodial interrogation merely because the recovery of stolen property has not been effected. The Court emphasized that coercive or “third-degree” methods cannot be used to extract information from an accused and that the absence of recovery does not, by itself, render the prosecution case unsustainable if other evidence inspires confidence.

Summary: The petitioner, Gurmail Singh, lodged FIR No. 88 dated October 31, 2012, under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Behram, alleging that the accused, Gurjit Singh @ Jeeta (respondent No. 2), had stolen a combine harvester purchased by the complainant through a bank loan. The complainant claimed he had repaid the entire loan, obtained a civil decree for possession, and recovered the machine, which was later stolen again by the accused. When the accused surrendered before the Magistrate, the police sought his remand for recovery of the combine harvester, but both the Judicial Magistrate (vide order dated February 7, 2013) and the Sessions Judge (vide order dated March 1, 2013) declined the request.

Challenging these orders, the complainant argued that refusal to grant police remand prejudiced the investigation by preventing recovery of the stolen article. The State and defence opposed, asserting that the accused had already joined investigation twice — once during anticipatory bail proceedings and again as directed by the Magistrate — and was interrogated for hours. It was contended that the complainant sought police custody to facilitate coercive interrogation, which is impermissible. The Court also noted that the challan had already been presented, charges framed, and trial commenced, without any move by the investigating agency for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Justice Rekha Mittal held that the power to remand to police custody cannot be exercised at the instance of a private complainant after the investigation is complete. The Court observed that the alleged theft involved a large combine harvester, and if police failed to recover it despite interrogation, it could not justify renewed custody. The offence under Section 379 IPC, the Court added, could still be proved on the basis of other credible evidence.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court, and ruled that no further police remand could be granted at this stage.