Yogeshbhai Naginbhai Vora vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the order passed by the Sessions Judge granting seven days of remand is not illegal and does not require interference. The Court reasoned that there is no absolute bar preventing a court from granting remand after the initial 15 days have passed, provided the investigating agency has acted promptly. The Court found that the State had acted promptly in challenging the Magistrate's order and pursuing the revision application. The Court distinguished the case of *Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel* by noting that in that case, the accused was ordered to judicial custody, whereas in the present case, the Magistrate had rejected the remand application entirely, denying any form of custody (police or judicial) initially. The Court emphasized that denying any form of remand would be prejudicial to the investigating agency's right to thoroughly investigate the matter. The Court concluded that the reliance on *Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel* was misplaced due to the different factual matrix. Therefore, the Sessions Judge's order was upheld.

Facts

The petitioner, Yogeshbhai Naginbhai Vora, challenged an order dated July 22, 2022, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. This order partly allowed a revision application filed by the State Tax Officer, quashing a prior order dated July 6, 2022, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. The Magistrate had rejected the remand application of the State Tax Officer. The petitioner was arrested on July 6, 2022, for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(c) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created bogus firms to issue invoices and duty bills without goods transportation, thereby passing on Input Tax Credit and causing a loss of Rs. 11,29,97,870/- to the government treasury on transactions totaling Rs. 74,07,63,818/-. The petitioner sought 14 days of remand, which was rejected by the Magistrate. The State then approached the Sessions Court, which granted seven days of remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order granting police remand by the Sessions Judge is legally tenable when it was passed after the expiry of the initial 15-day period from the date of arrest, as per Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge's order was not tenable as the petitioner was arrested on July 6, 2022, and the remand order was passed on July 22, 2022, exceeding the initial 15-day period. The petitioner contended that police custody can only be granted for the initial 15 days, and thereafter, custody can only be judicial. Reliance was placed on *Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat*. The respondent State argued that the order was justified under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. They contended that the State had acted promptly by filing the revision application within one day of the Magistrate's order and pursuing it diligently. The State submitted that the delay in passing the order by the Sessions Court should not prejudice the investigating agency's right to effectively investigate the economic offense, especially since the petitioner holds crucial information. Reliance was placed on *Gopalbhai Chaturbhai vs. State of Gujarat*.