⚖ LITIGATION STRATEGY UNDER SECTION 187 BNSS, 2023
(Police Custody Remand Defence Framework)
🔎 I. Understand the Structural Change
Under Section 187 BNSS:
-
Total police custody = maximum 15 days
-
But can be granted any time within first 40 days (60-day offences)
or first 60 days (90-day offences)
👉 Therefore, the defence must now attack:
-
Necessity
-
Delay
-
Misuse of extended window
-
Article 21 proportionality
🧠 II. Core Defence Arguments Against Police Custody
1️⃣ ARGUMENT OF DELAY (Strategic Ground)
If police seek custody after 20–30 days:
Defence Submission:
“The investigating agency had ample opportunity during earlier period. The belated request indicates lack of diligence and violates proportionality under Article 21.”
Even though BNSS permits extended window, you argue:
-
Late custody = harassment
-
Investigation cannot be improved by delay
-
Liberty strengthened with time
Use reasoning from:
-
Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (application of mind)
-
Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (reasoned order)
2️⃣ ARGUMENT OF “NO SPECIFIC NECESSITY”
Police must show:
-
Recovery pending?
-
Discovery under Evidence Act?
-
Confrontation with co-accused?
-
Digital extraction required?
If grounds are vague:
“Investigation is at crucial stage”
→ Argue mechanical request.
3️⃣ ARGUMENT OF PRIOR INTERROGATION
If accused already interrogated during:
-
Informal custody
-
Transit remand
-
Earlier police custody
Argue:
“No fresh grounds shown. Previous custody not demonstrated to be ineffective.”
4️⃣ ARGUMENT OF DOCUMENTARY / ECONOMIC OFFENCE
In financial crimes:
Argue:
-
Evidence is documentary
-
Already seized
-
Custodial interrogation unnecessary
Use principle from:
-
State through CBI v. Anil Sharma
(Custody justified only when necessary for effective interrogation)
5️⃣ ARGUMENT OF PROPORTIONALITY (Constitutional Strategy)
BNSS expanded custody window.
Argue:
-
Section 187 must be read in light of Article 21.
-
Expanded window ≠ automatic entitlement.
-
Custody must satisfy proportionality test:
-
Legitimate aim
-
Necessity
-
Least restrictive measure
-
This opens constitutional challenge space in future litigation.
📊 III. Tactical Courtroom Approach
Step 1: Demand Case Diary Inspection
Magistrate must examine it.
Step 2: Ask Court to Record:
-
Specific purpose of custody
-
Why judicial custody insufficient
-
Why earlier opportunity not used
Step 3: Seek Limited Custody
If unavoidable:
-
Ask for reduced days (1–2 instead of 7–10)
-
Ask for interrogation timing limits
🧾 IV. Grounds for Revision / High Court Challenge
If remand granted mechanically:
File:
-
Revision under BNSS equivalent of Sec 397 CrPC
-
Petition under inherent powers
Grounds:
-
Non-application of mind
-
No specific necessity
-
Violation of Section 187 structure
-
Violation of Article 21
📘 V. Strategy in Multiple FIR Cases
If accused already in judicial custody in FIR 1:
Police must:
-
Obtain production warrant
-
Follow fresh remand procedure
Use reasoning from:
-
Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand
⚠ VI. When Police Custody Is Likely to Be Granted
Realistically, courts grant PC when:
✔ Recovery of weapon
✔ Custody of mobile / digital devices
✔ Identification of co-accused
✔ Terror / NDPS / organized crime cases
In such cases:
-
Focus on reducing duration, not full rejection.
🎯 Golden Defence Formula Under BNSS
“Total police custody is capped at 15 days, and expanded window under Section 187 does not dilute the constitutional obligation of strict judicial scrutiny.”
📌 10-Second Courtroom Submission Model
“Your Honour, Section 187 permits custody but does not mandate it. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate specific investigative necessity. Liberty under Article 21 demands strict scrutiny. Judicial custody is sufficient.”