the said order is challenged in these appeals.
it emerged during investigation that the said shri kulkarni was one of the associates of the accused one shri r.chaudhary responsible for the said kidnaping of the diamond merchants.
on the basis of some available material shri kulkarni was arrested on 4.10.91 and was produced before the chief metropolitan magistrate delhi on 5.10.91.
the chief metropolitan magistrate relying on a judgment of the delhi high companyrt in state delhi admn.
shri kulkarni was remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.91.
when he was being taken on the way shri kulkarni pretended to be indisposed and he was taken to the hospital the same evening where he remained confined on the ground of illness up 21.10.91 and then he was referred to cardic out patient department of g.b.
on the request of the c.b.i.
on 11.10.91 an application was moved by the investigating officer seeking police custody of shri kulkarni which was allowed.
in state delhi administration v. dharam pal and others 1982 cr.l.j.
v. dharam pal and others 1982 crl.
pant hospital.
1103 refused police remand.
upto 29.10.91 shri kulkarni was again remanded to judicial custody by the magistrate and thereafter was sent to jail.
binu tamta for the respondent.
and numberhing has been divulged by him therefore it is number desirable to companyfine him in jail and in that view of the matter he granted him bail.
from the judgment and order dated 9.12.1991 of the delhi high court in crl.m.
in view of the fact that the police could number take him into police custody all these days the investigating officer again applied to the companyrt of chief metropolitan magistrate for police custody of shri kulkarni.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number.
again the same learned judge justice l.jain in trilochan singh v. the state delhi administration 1981 crl.l.j.
solicitor general kailash vasdev and ms.
the facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated.
ram jethmalani dinesh mathur and ms.
the judgment of the companyrt was deliverd by jayachandra reddy j. leave granted.
alpana kirpal for the appellant.
the high court however did number decide the question whether or number after the expiry of the initial period of 15 days a person can still be remanded to police custody by the magistrate before whom he was produced.
t.s.tulsi addl.
on 10.10.91 a test identification parade was arranged but shri kulkarni refused to companyperate and his refusal was recorded by concerned munsif magistrate.
the learned single judge in the first instance companysidered whether there was material to make out a case of kidnaping or abduction against shri kulkarni and observed that even the abducted persons namely the four diamond merchants do number point an accusing finger against shri kulkarni and that at any rate shri kulkarni himself has been interrogated in jail for almost seven days by the c.b.i.
1103 a division bench of the delhi high companyrt overruled the learned single judges case and trilochan singhs case.
m number 2409/91 and crl.
a case relating to abduction of four bombay based diamond merchants and one shri kulkarni was registered at police station tughlak road new delhi on 16.9.91 and the investigation was entrusted to b.i.
during investigation it was disclosed that number only the four diamond merchants but also shri kulkarni who is the respondent before us and one driver babulal were kidnapped between 14th and 15th september 1991 from two hotels at delhi.
questioning the same a revision was filed before the high companyrt of delhi.
r. number 201 of 1991.
