Problem Question on Remand in Multiple Cases

📘 Hypothetical

A is arrested on 1 January in FIR-1 for cheating (max punishment 7 years). He is remanded to judicial custody.

On 20 January, while A is in jail, police register FIR-2 under UAPA relating to a conspiracy allegedly connected to the same transaction.

On 25 January, police seek:

1. Formal arrest of A in FIR-2

2. Police custody for 10 days in FIR-2

On 10 April, no charge-sheet is filed in FIR-2. A applies for default bail.

State argues:

• A was already in custody since 1 January.

• Investigation is complex under UAPA.

• Custody in FIR-1 should be counted for FIR-2.

Discuss legality of:

1. Police custody in FIR-2

2. Computation of remand period

3. Default bail entitlement

✅ Model Answer Structure

1️⃣ Whether police custody in FIR-2 is permissible?

As per Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand:

• If accused is in judicial custody in one case,

• Police must formally arrest him in the second case,

• Produce him before competent court,

• Then seek remand under Section 167 CrPC.

👉 Custody in FIR-1 does NOT bar police custody in FIR-2.

Thus, police custody in FIR-2 is legally permissible if:

• Formal arrest is made,

• Produced before Special Court,

• Remand granted within statutory limits.

2️⃣ How is remand period computed?

Principle: Each FIR is independent for remand purposes.

The remand clock for FIR-2 starts from:
👉 Date of first remand in FIR-2 (25 January).

Custody in FIR-1 (from 1 January) is irrelevant for calculating remand in FIR-2.

This follows the reasoning in:

• Pradeep Ram (2019)

• Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (indefeasible right doctrine)

3️⃣ Default Bail in FIR-2

Since FIR-2 is under UAPA:

• Normal period: 90 days

• Can extend to 180 days with court approval under UAPA

If no charge-sheet is filed within statutory period AND:

• No valid extension order exists,

• Accused files application after expiry,

Then right to default bail becomes indefeasible.

This principle is reinforced in:

• Sanjay Dutt v. State

• Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam

In the Given Facts:

• Remand in FIR-2 began 25 January.

• 90 days expire around 25 April.

• If no valid UAPA extension is granted before expiry,

• And A applies after expiry,

👉 He is entitled to default bail in FIR-2.

Custody in FIR-1 does NOT defeat default bail in FIR-2.

🔑 Key Legal Principles for Exams

✔ Each FIR has separate remand cycle
✔ Formal arrest required in subsequent FIR
✔ Default bail is case-specific
✔ Custody in one case does not suspend statutory right in another
✔ UAPA extension must be judicially granted before expiry

⚖ 10-Mark Conclusion Paragraph

In cases involving multiple FIRs, the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram clarified that custody is offence-specific. An accused already in jail can be formally arrested in a subsequent case and remanded separately. The statutory period for default bail is computed independently for each FIR. Upon expiry of the prescribed period without charge-sheet and upon application by the accused, the right to default bail becomes indefeasible, reflecting the constitutional mandate under Article 21.