Introduction
In its recent decision in State of Karnataka v. Kalandar Shafi[i], the High Court of Karnataka addressed a crucial issue concerning the procedural framework under the newly enacted Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’). The case explores the delicate balance between investigation imperatives and the inviolable right to personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’). At the heart of the matter lies the interpretation of s. 187(3)(i) of the BNSS and whether offences punishable ‘up to ten years’ qualify for extended procedural provisions applicable to graver crimes.
The High Court delved into the statutory contours of custodial timelines and penal provisions, emphasising legislative intent and constitutional safeguards. It critically examined whether the alleged offences—abetment of suicide under s. 108 and extortion under s. 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)—fall within the category of crimes punishable by ‘ten years or more’, justifying a ninety-day investigation period and extended police custody. By dissecting the threshold of punishments and statutory interpretation, the High Court reaffirmed its role as a sentinel of liberty while acknowledging the demands of effective law enforcement.
Brief Facts
The factual matrix arose from the death of B.M. Mumtaz Ali on 06.10.2024, leading to the registration of Crime No. 150 of 2024 for offences punishable under ss. 108, 190, 308(2), 308(5), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS.
Thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 and 5 were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore (‘Magistrate’), where they were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody as the investigation progressed. On 12.10.2024, the Investigation Officer (‘IO’) arrested Accused No. 6 and produced him before the Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. The Magistrate initially granted police custody of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 upon a requisition by the police.
However, during the course of the investigation, the police discovered voice samples linked to the accused, allegedly revealing critical evidence. The prosecution contended that matching these samples to the accused’s voices necessitated further police custody for corroboration. On 04.12.2024, the IO sought additional police custody for certain accused persons to verify the voice samples and gather further evidence. The Magistrate rejected this application, citing statutory limitations under s. 187(3)(i) of the BNSS restricts police custody to fifteen days within the first forty days of the investigation for a category of offences.
The accused opposed the application and subsequent petitions, contending that the alleged offences, punishable by imprisonment ‘up to ten years’, did not meet the statutory threshold of ‘ten years or more’ required for extended custody. They argued that the Magistrate had correctly applied the limitations imposed by s. 187(3)(i) of the BNSS.
Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, the prosecution and the complainant filed a Criminal Petition and a Writ Petition in the High Court, respectively, seeking to set aside the impugned order of the Magistrate dated 04.12.2024. They argued that rejecting their application for additional police custody impeded the ongoing investigation.
Held
The High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision to reject the application for additional policy custody, concluding that s. 187 of the BNSS restricts police custody to a maximum of fifteen days, which must be availed within the first forty days of the investigation for offences punishable by imprisonment ‘up to ten years’.
The Court undertook a comparative analysis of s. 187 of the BNSS and s. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), highlighting that the legislative intent in both provisions remains consistent. It emphasised the balance between efficient investigation and the accused’s right to liberty. It clarified that while s. 167(2) of the CrPC applied to offences punishable with imprisonment ‘not less than ten years’, s. 187(3)(i) of the BNSS applied to offences with a ‘minimum threshold punishment of ten years’.
The High Court further clarified that the phrase ‘ten years or more’ in s. 187(3)(i) unequivocally refers to offences with a mandatory minimum punishment of ten years and does not include offences merely extendable to ten years. The Court reaffirmed that statutory provisions curtailing personal liberty must be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity in penal statutes should be resolved in favour of the accused to uphold the constitutional right to liberty under a. 21 of the Constitution.
It found that the offences in this case did not carry a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Consequently, the Magistrate rightly adhered to the statutory limit of fifteen days of police custody within the first forty days of the investigation. Since this period had already lapsed, the Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision to deny the prosecution’s request for extended custody.
Additionally, the Court observed that any modifications to charges or the introduction of additional offences must follow due procedure before the competent court. Until such modifications are made, the current statutory interpretation would govern the matter. Resultantly, the High Court dismissed both petitions, finding no error in the Magistrate’s order. It reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for investigation and custody, ensuring a balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual liberty.
Our Analysis
This decision reinforces that provisions curtailing personal liberty must be interpreted strictly, particularly under a. 21 of the Constitution. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural safeguards and constitutional rights, harmonizing the competing demands of effective law enforcement and protecting individual rights. The High Court’s reasoning reinforces that offences ‘punishable up to ten years’ do not meet the threshold of ‘ten years or more’. This distinction reflects a nuanced legislative intent aimed at safeguarding individual liberties from unwarranted custodial delays.
The judgment highlighted the aforementioned difference in phraseology between s. 167(2) of the CrPC and s. 187 of the BNSS, the shift from ‘not less than ten years’ to ‘ten years or more’ is crucial in determining the investigation period and police custody limits. The Court correctly noted that the BNSS provision imposes stricter requirements on police custody, limiting law enforcement authorities' discretionary power to seek extended custody periods. The decision also reaffirms the crucial role of Judicial Magistrates as gatekeepers of personal liberty during investigations. By rejecting the prosecution’s plea, the High Court has set a clear precedent that police custody cannot be sought beyond the prescribed period, even in cases where new evidence emerges later in the investigation.
End Note
[i] Criminal Petition No.13459 OF 2024 C/W Writ Petition No.33526 of 2024 (GM – RES).
Authored by Siddharth Jha, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.