MD.

SHAHNAWAZ
SECTION – B
EMAIL – Shahnawazvm@gmail.com

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT - I
REMAND
INTRODUCTION
The article 22(2) of the constitution of India requires any person arrested and detained in
custody to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest and no
person can be detained beyond the said period without the authority of the magistrate.
Similarly, section 57 of Cr.P.C states that the police officer who arrests a person without a
warrant shall not detain him in his custody for more than 24 hours without the special
permission of a magistrate under section 167 Cr.P.C. 
This above-mentioned special permission referred to in section 57 Cr.P.C is commonly
referred to as remand. As per section 167, when a police officer has arrested any person
without a warrant and he believes that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours
but there are grounds for believing that the accusation is well-founded, he shall forthwith
produce the accused before the jurisdictional magistrate or the nearest magistrate as the case
maybe, along with copies of the case diary. It is here that the process of remand comes into
play and the magistrate decides whether to remand the person into judicial custody or in
police custody or alternatively to set him free.
Remand is the authorized detention of an accused person in custody during the process of
investigation or during the trial as the case maybe. Remand of an accused is contemplated in
two stages; pre-cognizance stage (section 167 Cr.P.C) and post cognizance stage (Section 309
Cr.P.C). We shall only be dealing with the remand in pre cognizance stage granted under
section 167 Cr.P.C since the said provision relates to Transit Remand.
In the pre-cognizance stage i.e when the person has been arrested by the police and forwarded
to the magistrate, but the matter is still under investigation and the chargesheet has not been
submitted, in such a situation, there are two kinds of remands which can be granted by the
magistrate. One is Police Custody Remand wherein the arrested person is sent in the
custody of the police for the purpose of further investigation and is kept in the police lockup
and the second is Judicial Custody Remand where the person is sent to the local jail.
 TRANSIT REMAND
The term “Transit Remand” is neither mentioned nor defined in the Cr.P.C and is rather a
term that has evolved through its usage in common parlance. To put it simply, transit remand
can be said to be the remand of the accused, sought by the police, for taking the accused from
one place to another in their own custody, usually for the purpose of producing him before
the concerned magistrate who has jurisdiction to try/commit the case (Jurisdictional
Magistrate). Therefore, the primary purpose of such a remand is to enable the police to shift
the person in custody from the place of arrest to the place where the matter can be
investigated and tried. The concept of Transit Remand is implicit in section 167 Cr.P.C and it
can also be said to be a special type of or a subspecies of police custody remand as
contemplated under section 167 Cr.P.C which is given for the particular purpose of the transit
of the accused from one place to another to be presented before the jurisdictional
magistrate. Needless to say, that when the police present the accused before the jurisdictional
magistrate, they have to move a fresh application if they want police custody remand since
the purpose of the transit remand stands extinguished/discharged.
Taking the example of the case of Vikas Dubey, the crime was said to have been committed
in Kanpur, as such the courts in Kanpur shall ultimately have jurisdiction in the matter. As
such, when the accused was arrested in Ujjain, it would have been necessary for the U.P
Police to take the accused to Kanpur for further investigation and trial. Now in order for the
police to have kept the accused in their own custody beyond 24 hours and themselves
produce him before the Jurisdictional magistrate at Kanpur, the police would have had to
seek the permission of the court at Ujjain for transit remand.
Another instance when a transit remand is sought is when the accused person is in jail (either
during the investigation, during the trial or after conviction), and he is also an accused in a
case which has to be investigated and tried in a different district. In such a case, a request
maybe made by the police authorities to the concerned court which may grant such
permission, if it deems fit, to transfer the accused person and produce him before the court
where he has to be tried for the other case. In such a case the accused would be formally
arrested by the police and such an order would be in terms of section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Although, in practice, the most commonly sought transit remand is the one as contemplated
in section 167 Cr.PC, however the same being a generic word is also used in other situations.
For instance, transit remand may also be sought under Section 80 Cr.P.C. The main
difference in both the situations is that Section 80 is applicable only where the accused is
arrested under a warrant issued by a court in a district which is different from the district
where the accused is arrested. However, in cases like Dubey’s, where the police officer
arrests without a warrant, the transit remand which has to be sought is the one contemplated
under section 167 Cr.P.C.
 TYPES OF REMAND IN CUSTODY UNDER CRPC
# On the basis of stage:
The power of sending back of the accused in the custody of competent authority is given
under 3 provisions of the CrPC. One under S. 167(2), S.209(b) and S.309(2) of the CrPC.
The difference lies in the stage at which it is ordered. While remand under S.167(2) relates to
the stage of investigation and is ordered for furthering the investigation and can be either in
judicial custody or police custody, remand under S.209(b) relates to the stage when the
magistrate commits the case, he can remand the accused to the custody during and until the
conclusion of the trial subject to the provisions of bail under the code and finally remand
under S.309(2) relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be sent to judicial custody.
The remand under S.209(b) and S.309(2) is for securing the presence of the accused during
the trial.

# On the basis of authority who orders it:

The power of remand under S.167 can be further classified into 2 heads on the basis as to
who is the authority ordering it. The one is given to the judicial magistrate under S167(2) and
the other is given to the executive magistrate under S.167(2A) which can be exercised by him
only in the absence of a judicial magistrate.
The Remand Application:
Remand application under S.167(1) is made by the officer in charge of the police station or
the person making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of the sub inspector whenever
he thinks that the investigation would not be completed within 24 hours as mandated by S. 57
and he has grounds to believe that the accusation or the information is well informed. He
must also forward the accused and the transit the copy of the entries in the diary along with
the application.

In the case of Ram Doss vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the court has held that while granting
remand under S.167 of the CrPC a Magistrate has to see:
1. The grounds why detention beyond 24 hours is sought for which can be decided by him on
the basis of the material forwarded to him by the police officer.
The court further held that there can be no doubt to the view that a remand order is a judicial
order. Therefore, this power has to be exercised by him in accordance with the well settled
norms of making a judicial order. Therefore, for the said reason to also has to see that:
2. There is a report disclosing cognizable offence
3. The case has been registered for investigation.
Gautam Navlakha vs. the State of Delhi
In this case, the petitioner was arrested by the Maharashtra Police in New Delhi for an
offence alleged to have been committed and FIR said to have been registered in Pune. The
petitioner was placed under house arrest by the police and application for Transit remand (to
take the accused from Delhi to Pune) was filed by the Investigation Officer before the court
of C.M.M Saket in New Delhi which was allowed by the said court. In the meantime, the
petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and one of the
questions under consideration was the legality of the above-mentioned order granting the
transit remand to the Maharashtra police.