- (1.)We nave heard Shri P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. S. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.)In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, the legality of the order dated 3-6-1992 made by the Designated Court directing the accused person, a certain Ashok Reddy against whom a case under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is registered and is under investigation, be handed over from judicial custody to police custody for a period of three days for purposes of investigation of the case is assailed. The learned Magistrate before whom the accused person was initially produced for detention pending investigation had ordered the accused to judicial custody. Thereafter an application was made before the Designated Court for police custody for purposes of investigation. It Is not disputed that the impugned order dated 3-6-1992 made by the Designated Court was well within the period of 60 days -S. 20 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 enlarges the period of 15 days referred to in sub-sec. (2) of S. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, into 60 days - had not expired. The circumstances that the operation of the order was subsequently stayed by this Court in these proceedings and that during the period of such stay the sixty days period has run out does not affect the validity and efficacy of the order dated 3-6-1992 if the challenge thereto fails.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urged that the ground on which police custody is sought is itself vague and impermissible, inasmuch as it referred to the need for discovery based on confessional statement allegedly made by the accused before the Additional Superintendent of Police, and that, with the lapse of time, any information leading to discovery would really be meaningless. Further, learned counsel expressed serious apprehensions about the safety of the life and limb of the accused in the hands of the police.