HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13062 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner’s son i.e. accused No.2 was arrested in connection with Crime No.387 of 2010 of III Town P.S., Visakhapatnam City and during investigation into the said crime, accused No.2 confessed about commission of offence in another Crime No.231 of 2010 of P.M. Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam City and was produced before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. Later, accused No.2 was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, on 16.08.2010, in connection with Crime No.231 of 2010 through P.T. warrant issued by the said Court. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, P.M. Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam City, filed Crl.M.P.No.2058 of 2010 in Crime No.231 of 2010 for police custody of accused No.2 for a period of two days in order to recover the stolen property in Crime No.231 of 2010 and the learned Magistrate allowed the petition granting police custody of accused No.2 vide order dated 27.08.2010. The same is under challenge in this Criminal Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused No.2 was arrested on 07.08.2010 and the detention is valid only for a period of first 15 days and after expiry of the same, the question of seeking police custody does not arise and thereby the learned Magistrate should not have granted police custody of the accused after expiry of 15 days. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi Vs. Anupam J.Kulkarni[1]. The relevant portion of Para 11 of the judgment is extracted as under: “We are unable to agree, in one occurrence it may so happen that the accused might have committed several offences and the police may arrest him in connection with one or two offences on the basis of the available information and obtain police custody. If during the investigation his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is disclosed that does not authorise the police to ask for police custody for a further period after the expiry of the first fifteen days. If that is permitted then the police can go on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object underlying Section 167. However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the magistrate for detention in police custody.” 5. The aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel is in conformity with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. In the said decision also, the Apex Court held that it is the duty of the police officer to get a fresh remand and then to file a petition for police custody. 6. In the present case also, accused No.2 was produced before the Court under P.T. warrant, and subsequently on a petition filed by the Inspector of Police, police custody of accused No.2 was granted. So, this Court is of the view that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that accused No.2 can be released on bail in the present case. This Court is of the view that by invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the question of releasing accused No.2 on bail does not arise. The petitioner can approach the Court concerned and move an application for release of his son, accused No.2, and on such application, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th December, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13062 OF 2010 (Disposed of) 27th December, 2010 CBS [1] AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1768(1)