Difference between Police Remand & Judicial Remand

Police Remand

Police remand implies that the actual custody of the charged is with the Police, the blamed is stopped in a lock-up of a police headquarters.

After a FIR is stopped for a cognizable offense (gives discipline to over three years), the denounced is captured by the police to forestall the altering of proof or affecting the observers.

Under Section 57 of CrPC, the cop can’t keep the denounced for over 24 hours, independent of whether or not the examination is finished. The blamed is delivered before the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours of the capture, the police seek for his remand to police custody to finish the examination speedily, the police chooses for how long the charged should be kept in custody, which can’t surpass a time of 15 days.

Prior the blamed were apprehensive for the police remand as they were exposed to physical torture and harassment, yet after the Supreme Court decisions identified the freedoms of charged, these occurrences have decreased, Supreme Court brought to task many cops for custodial torment. Resourceful accused, government officials and others appreciate insusceptibility from third-degree or to say improved cross examination strategies.

Judicial Remand

judicial remand is there in the event of genuine offenses, where the Court might agree on the solicitation of the police to remand the charged in judicial remand after the police remand period terminates, that is to forestall the altering of proof or witnesses.

It is required in criminal cases to record a chargesheet inside 90 days. Assuming there is disappointment in the recording of a charge-sheet inside 90 days, the bail is typically allowed to the blamed. However, on the off chance that assuming deplorable offenses, similar to assault or murder, the blamed is for the most part kept in a judicial remand (that is kept in prison under the remand of the court) for a more drawn out span notwithstanding the recording of a chargesheet, to not impact the course of preliminary.

The judicial remand might be for a time of 60 days for any remaining violations, assuming the Court thinks that it is persuading that adequate explanation exists, following which the suspect or charged might be delivered on bail.

Major differences between Police Remand and Judicial Remand

The significant differences between police remand and judicial remand are:

Police remand implies that the blamed stays in the lock-up for a police station or in the custody of an investigating office who is investigating the concerned matter, while judicial remand implies that the denounced is stopped up in prison and is under the remand of the Magistrate.

A individual stopped in a police custody needs to show up within 24 hours before the concerned Magistrate, though in the judicial remand the individual is kept in prison until there is a request from the Court for bail.

Police remand starts when the suspect is captured by a cop in the wake of getting an objection or documenting of a FIR, while, the judicial remand starts after the public examiner fulfills the court that the custody of the blamed is fundamental for the examination reason.

In police remand, the time span is 24 hours which can be reached out to a time of 15 days overall by the proper Magistrate, while in Judicial remand the greatest time-frame for detainment is 90 days, in the situations where the examination is connected with offenses culpable with life detainment, passing or detainment for a term of at the very least decade and confinement is 60 days for violations where the detainment is for under decade.

In police remand, the security is given by the police, though in judicial custody the adjudicator/justice gives the security.

Law relating to custody in India

Section 167 of the Code of CrPC 1973 governs the arrangements for holding an individual in authority to continue further with the examination. Section 167 of CrPC permits an individual to be held in police remand on the sets of a Magistrate for a time of 15 days.

A Judicial Magistrate might remand an individual for a time of 15 days to any type of custody. A chief Magistrate might request to broaden the time of authority for as long as 7 days.

An individual might be held in police remand or judicial remand. Police remand might reach out up to a time of 15 days from the date the care starts, though the judicial remand might stretch out to a time of 90 days for the violations which involves life detainment or passing discipline or detainment for a term of at least decade and 60 days for wrongdoings where the detainment is for under decade, assuming the Magistrate is persuaded that there are adequate existing reasons, following which the suspect or charged should be delivered on bail.

The Magistrate has the power to remand the individual into police remand or judicial remand.

The detaining authority might be changed during the pendency of confinement, given that an absolute time span of custody doesn’t surpass 15 days. In the event that an individual is moved from police remand to judicial remand, the quantity of days the individual has served in police custody are deducted from the complete time that is remanded to judicial remand.

Landmark Cases:

State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharam Pal, 1981

It was held that after the expiry of 15 days referenced in Section 167(2), the denounced can’t be kept in a police remand, however just in judicial remand or any remand requested by a Magistrate.

Artatran Mahasurana and Ors. v. Territory of Orissa, 1956

It was held that it is the obligation of the police to satisfy the Magistrate to get a request for remand, that there is adequate proof against the charged. It was additionally expressed by the Court that on the off chance that the Magistrate isn’t satisfied on the current proof, additional proof should be acquired by the police to get the request for remand. The remand request is made solely after the satisfaction of the Magistrate.

Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. Territory of Gujarat and others. 2012

It was seen by the Supreme Court that remand is a key legal capacity of the Magistrate. Officer while performing his judiciall roles should be satisfied that there are sensible grounds and the materials put in before him legitimize the request of remand for a blamed. While passing the remand request of the denounced, the Magistrate is committed to apply his psyche to current realities and not simply consequently pass a remand request or in a mechanical way.

Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. Territory of Maharashtra and Anr, 2014

It was seen that an anticipatory bail can’t be rejected assuming there is a real reason for the remand of a wrongdoer to the police custody under Section 167(2) of CrPC that is made out by an exploring office.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here