1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.646/2004 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. MANOHAR SINGH DATE OF ORDER ::: 18/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. O.P.Rathi, for Petitioner – State. Mr. Sikander Khan, for Respondent. In course of investigation of FIR No.38/04 for investigation, police custody remand of accused Manohar Singh (R) was asked and learned Special Judge as per order dated 24.2.04 declined same – aggrieved of order dated 24.2.04, preferring this petition, requests orders for police remand. As per petition on 8.11.03, police personnel searching a Jeep bearing No. RJ 12-C-0506, recovered 77.4 kg. Opium which jeep was being driven by Manohar Singh and one other was sitting with him – for this act FIR No.273/03 for the offence of Section 8 read with Section 18 N.D.P.S. Act registered – in course of investigation, accused-petitioner remained in police custody for eight days and then in judicial custody – in course of investigation, it was found that the vehicle used was without registration and number described on it false one. Also alleged is that in course of search of house of the accused R- on 10.11.03, duplicate certificate of 15.5.01 recovered which forged as it was not issued by the D.T.O., Dungarpur – so (for this document and vehicle) another FIR No.38/04 lodged and registered at police station against R for the offence of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B, IPC - and request of 2 police remand for Manohar Singh in FIR No.38/04 is declined by the impugned order. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that learned Judge has basically rejected police remand prayer on grounds that for the same incident of 8.11.03 for which FIR No.273/03 was another this FIR No. 38/04 is registered. Whereas argued, that FIR No.273/03 was registered specifically for the offence under NDPS Act and when vehicle used found to be without registration and duplicate registration forged one, then for these acts, another FIR No.38/04 is registered. Argued that FIR No.38/04 is for different offence altogether of different category then of NDPS Act so it cannot be assumed that only for one incident or part of incident, other FIR is registered. Argued that the learned Special Judge erred in holding that for the same incident or part of the incident is other FIR No.38/04 or such separate FIR can't be. Lastly argued that in any case, at the very initial stages, it is erroneous to conclude so. Considered arguments and also perused impugned order. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected request for police remand broadly for the reason (1) for FIR No.270/03, accused remained in police custody for 8 days upto 15.11.07. (2) Vehicle used for the offence pertaining to FIR No.273/03 is said to be without registration and also alleged recovery of duplicate registration found to be forged, but the document was recovered on 10.11.03 when and till after five days, accused in police custody. (3) On the same grounds, sought police custody remand in FIR No. 273/03 which rejected twice on 12.12.03 and 3.1.04. (4) Despite 3 above rejection, a responsible police officer not only did interrogate on 12.12.03, but also video and audiographed and obtained signed of accused on statements. (5) Then after yet another police custody application which rejected on 17.1.04 and then ultimately (6) this new FIR No.38/04 for forged registration etc. registered for the offence of Sections 420, 467, 468, 481 & 120B, IPC. Examining all the facts and happenings in detail, learned Sessions Judge concluded that for alleged acts inclusive of document and vehicle is FIR No.270/03 so far part of separate registration of FIR No. 34/08 neither warranted, nor as per law. Learned Sessions Judge has very deliberately discussed all material available on record. Prosecution has not controverted whatever is described in the impugned order. As observed, petitioner was in police custody for eight days. On above alleged facts and circumstances, by now more than 4 years have elapsed and police remand is sought. Considering all these factors and circumstances discussed as above and as the proceedings in relation to FIRs (challan, police report or whatever be) may be on so without further discussion and comments on any point, the petition is to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. (C. M.TOTLA), J. scd