Summary
Addition of serious non-bailable offences to a case in which bail was granted requires judicial authority for renewed custody, but cancellation of earlier bail is not invariably necessary. NIA’s procedural re-registration on taking over the scheduled-offence investigation was not a prohibited second FIR, and the earlier charge-sheet did not bar further investigation. The appellant’s judicial remand was upheld under Section 309(2), correcting the High Court’s reliance on Section 167.
Issues
- Whether addition of serious offences required cancellation of earlier bail before judicial custody.
- Whether NIA’s re-registration and further investigation were permissible.
- Whether the remand was governed by Section 167(2) or Section 309(2) CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 437(5) and 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Court could authorise renewed custody for added offences without necessarily cancelling the earlier bail. (¶ 19–29)
- Sections 6 and 8, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008Central entrustment authorised NIA investigation of scheduled and connected offences; procedural re-registration was valid. (¶¶ 31, 39–43)
- Sections 167(2) and 309(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973For this accused already before the court at cognizance and subsequently produced from other jail custody, remand was sustained under Section 309(2). (¶ 50–66)
Held
- An accused may surrender and seek bail for newly added cognizable non-bailable offences. Investigators must obtain a court order for arrest where court-granted bail subsists; the court’s power to order custody is not invariably conditional on formal cancellation of earlier bail. (¶¶ 21, 25–29)
- The appellant was produced from custody in another case under a court-issued warrant and remanded by the Special Judge. This judicial procedure did not require prior cancellation of his earlier bail. (¶ 28–29)
- NIA re-registered the existing FIR to implement statutory takeover after scheduled UAPA offences were added. That procedural step was not an impermissible second FIR. (¶ 39–43)
- The earlier charge-sheet and cognizance did not exhaust the power of further investigation and supplementary reporting, including investigation of the subsequently added offences by NIA. (¶ 42–47)
- Section 167 may apply to a person subsequently arrested during further investigation after cognizance. This appellant had already been before the court at cognizance and was produced from jail custody, so his judicial remand instead fell under Section 309(2). (¶ 54–64)
- The remand order cited neither provision. Absence or incorrect identification of the statutory source did not invalidate an order the Special Judge had power to make; it was treated as a valid Section 309(2) order. (¶ 65–66)
Result
Appeals dismissed. NIA re-registration and further investigation sustained. Judicial-remand order dated 25 June 2018 upheld under Section 309(2) CrPC, correcting the High Court’s characterisation under Section 167.