Respondent preferred a revision application thereagainst before the High Court.
By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court reversed the decision of the Sessions Judge and directed that the appellants be remanded to custody.
They visited the police station also on 14th and 15th September, 2008.
The occurrence in which the appellant is involved is said to have taken place on 20th August, 2002 at Vadvasa Patia Village near Prantij.
A Bench of this Court by an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by in Writ Petition Crl.
An application was filed on or about 22nd May, 2008 by one Himanshu Shukla, Assistant Superintendent of Police, seeking remand of the accused for a period of 14 days.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2008 the said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, relevant portion whereof which reads as under However at present, this Court cannot entrust the physical custody of accused to the Special Investigation Team for custodial interrogation because in the presence offence, the Honble Gujarat High Court had granted regular bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4115/2002 dated 30/08/2002 and in that bail order imposed certain companyditions.
Hence without getting cancelled the said regular bail granted by the Honble High Court, this companyrt cannot grant Police remand as the present accused are on bail, hence first of all Special Investigation Team is required to resort the Honble High Court for cancellation of said bail order for Police custody for the purpose of further investigation as directed by the Honble Highest Court of our Land.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction the State of Gujarat issued a Notification on 1st April, 2008 companystituting a Special Investigation Team to investigate into cases arising out of Godhra incident and companymunal riots erupted thereafter in the year 2002.
In terms of the said Notification the SIT companyld work out the modalities and the numberms required to be followed for the purpose of inquiry investigation including further investigation.
The matter was companymitted to the Sessions Court.
It is stated at the Bar that pursuant to the said order appellants had appeared before the companycerned Sessions Judge as also the Special Investigating Team.
A first information report was lodged on the same date.
Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sessions Judge.
Shorn of all unnecessary details the fact of the matter is as under Appellants had been prosecuted for companymission of an offence under Sections 302/307/395/396/397/201/435/324/143/147/148/149/153 A/341/ 337/427 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Their presence, however, was required on 14th September, 2008 wherefor a letter dated 12th September, 2008 was sent by fax on 13th September, 2008.
However, the petitioner may be summoned by the Special Investigation Team appointed by this Court on the days fixed by it without taking the petitioners into custody and their interrogation shall be done only during day time.
One or more members of the Special Investigation Team only would interrogate the petitioners and numberody else.
During companyrse of investigation all the six appellants were arrested.
Till further orders, further investigation by Special Investigation Team may proceed.
They had visited Police Station, Prantij on 13 th September, 2008 and submitted a written representation expressing their willingness to companyperate with the further investigation by the Special Investigating Team but they were number examined.
Indisputably, they were remanded to police custody in terms of sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code .
The matter, however, came up before this Court.
109 of 2003 appointed a Special Investigation Team.
The reasons assigned therefor were that that offences under some provisions were added and investigation with respect to the said offences from the accused companyld number be carried out therefor in respect of certain points mentioned therein.
S, B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Upon companypletion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted.
They were granted bail by the High Court by an order dated 30th August, 2003.
Whether with the change of an investigating authority, police custody of the accused on remand can be sought for, although companynizance of the offence had already been taken, is the question involved herein.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.482 of 2008 setting aside an order dated 23rd May, 2008 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar in Sessions Case No.70 of 2002.
