Remand

What is Remand?

The term remand has been defined by various authoritative legal sources to signify the act of sending a person or case back to a lower authority or custody for further action.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Legal Dictionary, remand means “to return (a case or a person) for further consideration or action,” particularly referring to sending an accused back into custody pending trial or further proceedings.

The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines remand as “the action of sending a person accused of an offence back into custody, or on bail, while awaiting trial or continuation of proceedings.” Likewise, Black’s Law Dictionary explains remand as “to send (a prisoner or accused) back into custody, or to send (a case) back to another court or authority for further action.”

Collectively, these definitions make it clear that in legal parlance, remand refers to the procedural act of returning either a person or a case for continued judicial process, commonly used when an accused is sent back to judicial or police custody during the pendency of investigation or trial.

Official and Statutory definition of Remand

Legislative Definition

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the CrPC, redefines and refines the statutory framework governing remand. Section 187 of the BNSS prescribes the procedure to be followed when an investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours and authorizes the magistrate to detain the accused in custody for up to fifteen days, subject to specified conditions. While this broadly aligns with the CrPC’s provisions, the BNSS introduces crucial linguistic and procedural changes. Notably, it allows the investigating agency to seek custody “in the whole or in part over sixty or forty days,” thereby departing from the rigid fifteen-day limit on police custody under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as interpreted in C.B.I. v Anupam J. Kulkarni and reaffirmed in Senthil Balaji v State. This modification introduces greater procedural flexibility while retaining judicial oversight.

In addition, Section 35(3) of the BNSS specifies that where the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years, the police shall ordinarily issue a notice of appearance rather than effecting an arrest. This marks a legislative shift aimed at minimizing unnecessary pre-trial detention and emphasizing proportionality in custodial measures.

Collectively, these provisions reflect the evolving legislative philosophy underlying remand in India. The transition from the CrPC to the BNSS demonstrates an intent to modernize and humanize the criminal justice process by reinforcing procedural safeguards, ensuring timely judicial oversight, and reducing arbitrary or prolonged detention.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the concept of remand ensures judicial supervision over the detention of an accused person during the course of investigation. Sections 57 and 58 mandate that any person arrested without a warrant must be produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, and the police must transmit the accused without unnecessary delay if release is not possible. Section 167 governs the procedure for remand when an investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, empowering a magistrate to authorize police custody for a period not exceeding fifteen days and, where necessary, to order further judicial custody within the prescribed limits. Further, Sections 209(b) and 309(2) provide for remand of the accused during trial or until the framing of charges, ensuring that detention remains lawful and subject to judicial scrutiny throughout the criminal process.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

In common usage, “remand” refers to the act of sending an accused person into custody (police or judicial) when an investigation is ongoing, or to compel appearance/production in court. Under the new legislative scheme, the term continues to apply but the legal basis rests chiefly in the procedural legislation (BNSS) rather than the penal statute itself. For instance, commentary states: “Remand law changes under BNS-2023.”

Although BNS is primarily a penal law, the interplay with custody/remand arises from statements by Ministry and commentary. For example:

1. The home minister clarified: “In BNS, remand period continues to be 15 days under BNS” for police custody, though it may be “taken in parts within upper limit of 60 days”.
2. The Corresponding Section Table of BNS indicates how the new law aligns with the repealed Indian Penal Code, 1860 and how procedural carve-outs may apply.

Thus while the exact numbered section of BNS laying down “remand” may not be in the penal part, the custody period and remand-like controls are built into the investigations/detention regime in tandem with BNSS.

In sum, though the BNS as penal law does not isolate a standalone “remand” provision, the legal regime for remand under the new criminal law architecture continues via procedural legislation and is closely tied to the custodial limits, production norms, and magistrate oversight embedded in the new scheme. For your report, you can treat the BNS in tandem with its procedure law counterpart to fully span the “remand” concept.

Model Prison Manual, 2016

The Model Prison Manual, 2016, provides guidelines for the administration of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. Relevant provisions include:

Section 1.28: Defines a remand prisoner as a person who has been remanded by the court to prison custody, pending investigation by the police. This definition highlights the administrative categorization of individuals awaiting trial and underscores the importance of proper classification and management within the prison system.

These guidelines aim to ensure that individuals in custody are treated humanely and that their rights are protected during the period of detention.

Legislative Intent

The legislative materials, explanatory notes, and policy commentary on the three new criminal laws show three recurring intentions behind the statutory (re)definition of remand:

1.Tightening Procedural Safeguards: There is an emphasis on mandatory recording of reasons for detention and strict time limits on police custody/remand to protect individual liberties.

2.Clarifying the Boundary Between Police and Judicial Custody: The aim is to prevent the mechanical use of remand by police to extend investigative detention without proper judicial oversight.

3.Harmonizing Procedure with Substantive Categorization: Offenses punishable by lesser terms attract lighter pre-trial intrusions, such as requiring a notice of appearance instead of arrest in many cases.

These legislative intents reflect a shift towards a more balanced and rights-respecting approach to pre-trial detention, aligning with constitutional safeguards and international human rights standards.

Transit Remand

In case an accused is arrested in a state other than the one in which the FIR or complaint is registered such that transportation of the accused has to be arranged and the period of transportation may go beyond a 24-hour period, court can pass order granting “transit remand” to allow the police to transport an accused from one sState to another. The Supreme Court has  noted that transit remand cannot be judicial custody because the police is exclusively entrusted with the accused in order to allow them to produce him before a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case. It was clarified that transit remand must therefore be police custody. Transit Remand is implicit under Section 187 of the BNSS . Section 187 of the BNSS corresponds to section 167 of the CrPC and authorizes a Magistrate to order the detention of an accused for investigation purposes, even if the Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to try the case. Similarly, Section 91 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 80 of the Cr.P.C and provides for the production of an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate for the purpose of granting transit remand to the jurisdictional court.

Transit remands are especially significant in cases under special Acts (like NDPS Act, PML Act, UAP Act, TADA Act and Companies Act etc ), where investigations are often carried out by central agencies (CBI, NIA, ED, CB-CID etc.) and accused may be apprehended outside the State where the FIR/ECIR is registered. Transit remand ensures compliance with constitutional safeguards before producing the accused before the Special Courts.

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act, (NDPS Act) 1985 Since drug trafficking often involves inter-State or international operations, transit remand is frequently sought to move the accused across jurisdictions.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act) National Investigation Agency (NIA) often arrests accused outside the State where the offence is registered.
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers arrest accused across States.
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act ), 1987
• Other Special Acts (Customs Act, 1962 and Companies Act, etc.) Central agencies, investigating inter-State offences must obtain transit remand to avoid illegality in custody.

Remand u/s 167 CrPC

The remand under Section 167(2) relates to the stage of investigation and is ordered for furthering the investigation and can be either in judicial custody or police custody.  Though there is no explicit mention of the word remand in the said section, the word remand can be traced from the meaning of the said provision which states that the accused may be remanded to judicial custody or police custody if the magistrate determines that there are sufficient grounds for further incarceration. Only the officer in charge of the police station or the investigation officer who is not below the rank of sub-inspector can make the remand application. The remand application is made by the officer when the officer is of the opinion that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. The Judicial Magistrate may either refuse to detain the accused or he may direct the detention of accused in police custody or judicial custody. The police can interrogate the accused even after his remand to judicial custody.

The nature of custody may be altered from police custody to judicial custody and vice versa, by the magistrate during the first 15 days period. But on expiry of 15 days period, the accused can only be ordered to be kept in judicial custody, up to a maximum period of 60 days in cases of offences punishable for less than 10 years and 90 days where the offences are punishable for over 10 years or even death sentence. In the event, an investigating authority fails to file the charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the accused is entitled to statutory bail or default bail.

Section 167 of the Code operates only at the investigation stage i.e. pre-cognizance stage and ceases to operate after the completion of the investigation. Then comes the cognizance stage wherein the court after perusing the final report and material, can extend the remand of the accused to custody under other provisions of law. The two stages are different, but one follows the other so as to maintain a continuity of the custody of the accused with a court.

It is to be noted that the time limit for custody during investigation stage is higher for the crime mentioned under NDPS Act i.e  “one hundred and eighty days”[section 36A(4) of NDPS Act], The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) provides that an accused can be kept in remand for a period of 180 days [ 43D  2(b) of The Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967.  etc.

Remand u/s 309 CrPC

This section authorizes a Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence or commencement of trial, to remand an accused person to jail for reasonable cause and with the objective to secure the presence of accused during the trial. This provision relates to the adjournment of proceedings in inquiries and trials and has nothing to do with the police investigation and, it contemplates a remand to jail and not to police custody. The remand here, relates to a stage after cognizance and can only be to judicial custody. The custody under this section is intended for under-trial prisoners.  This section requires a Magistrate, if he chooses to adjourn a case, “to remand by warrant the accused in custody”.  This section does not permit remand to custody for an indefinite period, but it should coincide with the duration of adjournment and not beyond it. However, the magistrate court shall not remand the accused to custody for a term exceeding 15 days at a time, but no limit has been set to the number of such successive remands.  

Remand u/s 209 CrPC

Section 209 of the Code authorises the Magistrate to remand an accused to custody while committing a matter to the Court of Sessions if the matter is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The remand under S.209(b) relates to the stage when the magistrate commits the case, he can remand the accused to the custody during and until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the provisions of bail under the code.

Further, For further understanding on grounds of remand and procedure Ram Doss v. The State of Tamil Nadu may be referred to. In State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar. The Court further elaborated upon the scope and extent of remand under Ss. 167 and 309 of CrPC.

Law Commission Reports and Committee Recommendations

Law Commission of India Reports

41st Law Commission Report

According to the 41st Law Commission report, The practice of filing a preliminary or ‘incomplete’ report, and the Magistrate, purporting to act under section 344, adjourns the proceedings and remands the accused to custody. The use of section 344 for a remand beyond the statutory period fixed under section 167 can lead to serious abuse, as an arrested person can in this manner be kept in custody indefinitely while the investigation can go on in a leisurely manner. It is, therefore, desirable that some time-limit should be placed on the power of the police to obtain a remand while the investigation is still going on and if the present time-limit of 15 days is too short, it would be better to fix a longer period rather than countenance a practice which violates the spirit of the legal safeguard

177th Law Commission Report

The one hundred and seventy seventh law commission report on Law relating to Arrest states that:

1. “Section 56 and Section 57, the person arrested shall not be kept in the custody of a police officer for a longer period than is reasonable and that in any event such period shall not exceed 24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court. Of course if the magistrate permits the police officer to keep such person in his custody, he can do so beyond the period of 24 hours.”  
2. “The unnecessary incarceration of under-trials in jails is another disturbing feature of our criminal judicial system … Many of them languish in jails because they are not able to either move for bail or to furnish the bail prescribed by the court … Number of instances have been pointed out by courts where under-trials have been kept in jails for periods longer than the maximum period for which they could have been sentenced had they been found guilty of the offence with which they were charged.”

268th Law Commission Report

In Indian criminal procedure, remand refers to the judicial order directing that an accused person be kept in police or judicial custody pending investigation or trial, primarily governed by Sections 167 and 309 of the CrPC. The Law Commission of India Report No. 268 (2017) emphasizes that remand should not be granted routinely; magistrates must carefully examine the case diary and ensure that police custody is necessary for gathering evidence or assisting the investigation. General or vague grounds are insufficient, and judicial scrutiny is essential to prevent misuse. The report further recommends that periods of custody be as short as possible, with prolonged detention discouraged, and that accused persons who have made confessions before a magistrate be placed in judicial custody rather than police custody. These principles aim to balance the investigative needs of the police with the fundamental rights of the accused, ensuring that remand serves its legitimate purpose without infringing on personal liberty.

Other Committees

Mulla Committee (1980-83)

The Mulla Committee focused on the conditions and rights of prisoners, identifying the abuse of remand and the plight of under-trial prisoners as one of the gravest injustices in the Indian penal system. It found that an overwhelming proportion of inmates were under-trials held on remand for years, many for durations exceeding the maximum punishment prescribed for their alleged offences. The Committee described this as a denial of both liberty and justice, stemming from delays in investigation and trial, inadequate legal aid, and mechanical remand extensions. It recommended urgent measures to reduce reliance on custodial remand, including speedy trials, wider use of bail and non-custodial alternatives, and strict separation between under-trial and convicted prisoners. For the Mulla Committee, humane and just handling of remand was central to any meaningful prison and criminal justice reform.

Malimath Committee (2003)

The Malimath Committee viewed the practice of remand as an area of serious concern within India’s criminal justice process. It observed that frequent and prolonged use of remand, especially in police custody, weakens the procedural safeguards meant to protect individual liberty. The Committee noted that investigations often proceed sluggishly while the accused remain in custody, effectively punishing them before trial. It cautioned against the growing tendency to seek repeated extensions of police remand and emphasised that such power must be exercised sparingly, with strict judicial scrutiny. The Committee underscored the need for reforms ensuring that remand orders are based on genuine investigative necessity rather than being granted mechanically, thereby upholding the constitutional balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.

As defined in case laws

The concept of remand in Indian criminal procedure has been extensively interpreted by the judiciary to ensure the protection of individual liberty while facilitating investigation. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 1 SCC 416), the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for arrest and detention, emphasizing the need for safeguards during custody, which indirectly impacts remand procedures. Earlier, in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 4 SCC 260), the Court highlighted the right of an accused to be informed of the reasons for arrest, reinforcing procedural requirements that precede any remand order.

The Supreme Court further refined the principles in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 8 SCC 273), cautioning against unnecessary arrests and emphasizing judicial oversight before remanding an accused to custody. High Courts have also contributed significantly to remand jurisprudence; for instance, in Syed Dastagir v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine TS 123), the Telangana High Court set aside a remand order where the accused was not produced before the magistrate within the legally mandated period, and in Habiob Bedru Omer v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 1234), the Delhi High Court emphasized the necessity of presenting the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours to prevent illegal detention.

Transit Remand

In Sundeep kumar v state Govt NCT of Delhi WP No. 2189/2018 (2019 SCC online Del 11901) laid down guidelines regarding production of the accused in case of transit remand especially interstate Remand

Sandeep Kumar Dey v. State of West Bengal (Cal HC, 2016) – held that a Magistrate granting transit remand exercises limited jurisdiction: only to authorize custody for production before the appropriate court. This case clarified the judicial responsibility of Magistrates in cases of inter-State arrests and transit remands. It reinforced that Magistrates act as protectors of liberty, ensuring legality of arrest and safeguarding rights, but cannot examine the substantive merits of the investigation. The Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the merits of the case or the sufficiency of evidence, since the case is registered outside his territorial jurisdiction. The Magistrate’s role in transit remand is limited and supervisory, confined to: a) Verifying the legality of the arrest. b) Ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards (like informing grounds of arrest, Section 41/41A Cr.P.C. compliance, medical examination, etc.). 17 c) Authorizing custody only for the limited purpose of enabling production before the competent court. d) The Magistrate must also ensure that the accused fundamental rights are protected, including access to legal counsel and medical aid. e) Transit remand jurisdiction is limited. f) The Magistrate cannot go into the merits of the case but must ensure that the arrest and detention are lawful and that the accused is produced before the competent court without unnecessary delay.

Gautam Navlakha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018, Delhi High Court) The Court held that, “even Magistrate before whom a transit application is filed is not required to merely satisfy himself that an offence has been committed and that the police officer seeking a remand is properly authorised. Such Magistrate is required to apply his mind to ensure that there exists material in the form of entries in the case diary that justifies the prayer for transit remand.” Transit remand granted by a Magistrate was quashed because: • No case diary entries were presented. • Grounds of arrest were not produced. • Legal aid was ineffective.

As clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha v. NIA, (2022) 13 SCC 542 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 382, it cannot be judicial custody because the police are exclusively entrusted with the accused for the purpose of producing him before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the custody during transit remand is police custody. This raises further issues: whether the police can interrogate or investigate the accused on the basis of the transit order, either before starting the journey, during the journey, or after the journey but before producing him before the competent Magistrate. The Court observed that if interrogation during the journey is impermissible without an order under Section 167 CrPC, then such interrogation would also be impermissible at any time during the transit period unless specifically authorized. Moreover, if the accused, while in transit, volunteers a statement that would otherwise fall under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it would be considered as one made while in police custody.

Regional Variations

While judicial custody may be awarded for a predetermined amount of time, usually no longer than 15 days at first, subject to additional extensions in cases where remand is sought u/s 167(2) of CrPC.

• In Punjab, this time period is for 30 days.

While the total time period of detention (including the time period of initial detention of 15 days) shall not exceed 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence.

• The state amendments of Manipur and Tripura provide for a total time of 180 days offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and 120 days where the investigation relates to any other offence.
• The state amendment of  Orissa, provides for a total time of 120 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.
  

Appearance in Official Database

Prison Statistics Report

Prison Statistics Report prepared by the National Crime Records Bureau does a yearly statistical analysis of prisons, including prison inmates. The Report also tracks the number of inmates taken on remand for each state and mentions it under the head ‘movement of inmates outside the jail premises’.

Movement on inmates outside the jail premises during the year 2020 including inmates taken on remand in each state

Crime in India

The Crime in India report (Volume III) prepared by the NCRB tracks the number of deaths in police custody/lock-up state wise. It gives data on the case status and the enquiries setup against such deaths. It separately covers persons in remand (i.e.  persons in police/ judicial remand) and persons not on remand (i.e. persons arrested and yet to be produced before courts).

The Crime in India report (Volume III) tracks the number of deaths in police custody/lock-up state wise.

Reasons for such custodial deaths (of person on remand and person not on remand) in each state

Research That Engages with Remand

Magistrates & Constitutional Protections: An Ethnographic Study of First Production and Remand in Delhi Courts

The study by Project 39A of NLUD, uses observations of Delhi's magistrate courts' courtrooms to examine how magistrates conduct themselves in public during first production and remand hearings. First Production and Remand refers to the due process procedures by which the magistrate may examine the accused's constitutional guarantees (life, liberty, dignity, and safety) under Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution.

Through three months of courtroom observation, from November 2022 to February 2023, the eight-person study team was able to look at how courts are operating at this point rather than just whether or not procedural rules are being followed. Researchers examined the roles played by various court actors and noted how social hierarchies and courtroom dynamics influenced the participants' experiences.

Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act: Rakesh Kumar Singh

The author highlights a significant legislative oversight: while the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides clear guidelines for the remand of accused individuals, the POCSO Act lacks explicit provisions detailing the authority responsible for remanding such accused persons. This legislative gap has led to inconsistent practices across different jurisdictions, with some courts remanding accused individuals without proper legal basis, while others refrain from doing so due to jurisdictional uncertainties.

Singh emphasizes the constitutional mandate under Article 22(2), which requires that every person arrested and detained in custody be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court. This provision aims to safeguard individual liberty and prevent arbitrary detention. However, the absence of specific remand procedures under the POCSO Act has resulted in varied interpretations and practices, undermining the uniform application of justice.

The paper advocates for a standardized and legally sound procedure for remanding accused individuals in POCSO cases. Singh suggests that the CrPC’s provisions should be harmoniously integrated with the POCSO Act to ensure consistency and legality in the remand process. By aligning the procedural aspects of both statutes, the author proposes a framework that upholds constitutional rights while effectively addressing the needs of justice in cases involving sexual offences against children. This approach seeks to eliminate the current discrepancies and establish a clear, uniform procedure for remand, thereby enhancing the efficacy and fairness of the judicial process in such sensitive cases.

Comparative Analysis of Remand Provisions under the CrPC and the BNSS: Legal Implications and Challenges

In this paper, the authors delve into the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the protection of personal liberty and the right against arbitrary arrest and detention. They critically analyze how the remand provisions under the CrPC, specifically Section 167, have traditionally balanced the need for police custody with the protection of individual rights.

BNSS exacerbates a tension by changing the parameters of police custody. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (CrPC), police custody was capped at a maximum of 15 days, to be strictly within the first remand period of 15 days? However, Section 187(2) of the Bharat Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) still keeps a maximum of 15 days of police custody, but now permits these 15 days to be taken at any time during the extended period of remand 40 days or 60 days, if the total remand period is 60 or 90 days respectively. This shift, which is claimed to facilitate investigation, raises serious constitutional issues concerning custodial constitutional rights as it enhances the possibility of prolonged police custodial abuse over an extended period. The concern is particularly grave given India's troubling record of custodial violence between April 1, 2017, and March 31, 2022, a total of 669 custodial deaths were recorded, with 175 such deaths occurring in 2021-22 alone. In response, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recommended monetary relief in 201 cases, amounting to 85,80,74,998, highlighting systemic failures in ensuring detainee safety.' Furthermore, 4,484 custodial deaths were recorded over the fiscal years 2020-2022, which includes deaths both in police and judicial custody. The authors express concerns that these changes may infringe upon constitutional rights and lead to increased custodial abuse.

Furthermore, the paper discusses the implications of these legislative changes on the concept of house arrest, a more humane alternative to institutional detention. The BNSS’s restrictive provisions on custody may undermine judicial discretion and the evolving jurisprudence favoring less restrictive forms of detention.

Unveiling the Comprehensive Impact of Remand in Custody: Assessing its Societal, Economical and Judicial Implications

The paper offers an in-depth analysis of the remand process under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The study emphasizes the constitutional principle that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet often face prolonged pre-trial detention, which can lead to significant societal, economic, and judicial repercussions.

Tomar categorizes the power of remand into two types: judicial and executive, highlighting the procedural distinctions and the role of magistrates in overseeing remand orders. The paper outlines the stages of remand, from initial detention to post-conviction custody, and critically examines the implications of prolonged detention, including mental health deterioration, loss of employment, and societal stigma.

Economically, the study points out the financial burden on the state due to the costs associated with maintaining remand facilities, which could be mitigated by exploring non-custodial alternatives. Judicially, the paper discusses how excessive reliance on remand contributes to case backlogs, delays in justice delivery, and potential violations of the right to a fair and speedy trial.

Drawing from Law Commission Reports and judicial precedents, Tomar advocates for reforms to ensure that remand is used judiciously and as a measure of last resort. The paper calls for the implementation of safeguards to protect individual liberties and recommends exploring alternatives to remand to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the legal system.

Comparative and International perspectives

Remand in Other Jurisdictions

United Kingdom

In England and Wales, the presumption under the Bail Act  1976 is in favour of granting bail pending trial, and remand into custody may be used only if bail conditions are insufficient to ensure appearance, protect the public, or prevent interference with the course of justice. The framework emphasises that custody should not be automatic, that conditions must be considered, and that remand in custody must be justified and time-limited. India, while having its own default bail safeguards, has increasingly looked to such common-law trappings of “release unless justified otherwise” in its jurisprudence on bail and remand. At the same time, Indian law retains a stronger emphasis on remand for investigative purposes (for example under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 167) and has not always matched the UK’s procedural ceiling (e.g., in remand time limits) or structured reconsideration frameworks seen in the UK model.

United States of America

In the United States, under the federal framework of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3142, the default position is release of an accused on personal recognizance or an unsecured bond, unless the judicial officer determines that no condition or combination of conditions will “reasonably assure” the person’s appearance and the safety of any other person or the community. At the detention hearing stage, the court must consider factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offence (especially whether it is violent or involves narcotics), the weight of the evidence, the history and characteristics of the accused (including community ties, past conduct, substance abuse, and record of court appearances), and the seriously of the danger posed by release.   Where the accused is charged with one of the particularly serious categories of offences specified in § 3142(f)(1)—for example crimes of violence, drug offences punishable by 10 + years, or repeat offenders—a rebuttable presumption arises that no release conditions are sufficient, shifting the burden onto the defence to show otherwise.   In comparison with India, where pre-trial remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) often emphasises the role of remand for investigative purposes (such as police custody for recovery of evidence) and attendance of the accused, the U.S. model places far greater emphasis on structured risk-assessment (flight risk + danger to community) and establishes formalised hearings and statutory criteria for detention decisions. India has in some judicial pronouncements recognised the need to treat custody as the exception and to justify pre-trial detention, thereby echoing the U.S. statute’s insistence on conditions rather than default detention.

Canada

Under the Criminal Code (Canada) (for instance s. 515) the Crown must show cause for pre-trial detention (remand) by demonstrating risk to court attendance, protection of the public or witnesses, or the maintenance of confidence in the administration of justice; and subsequent reviews of detention must occur (see s. 525). This puts remand truly in the position of exception rather than rule, and ensures periodic review of custody during the pre-trial stage. In India, the doctrine that detention pending trial should be exceptional finds resonance in judgments emphasising the right to default bail under section 167 of the CrPC (which is grounded in Article 21) and the need for investigation to proceed expeditiously. Nevertheless, India lacks a uniformly mandated review timeline of the kind that Canada embeds; the Canadian model of automatic or periodic review could provide a useful procedural reform reference for India.

Synonyms and Alternate Terms

1. Remand also relates to the way in which the cases are sent back to lower courts by the appellate court which is covered under Section 107 (1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court to remand a case. Specifically, remand is dealt with in Order 41 Rules 23, 23A and 25 of CPC.
2. The Remand under S.167(1) CrPC is also called ‘parcha’ remand as it arises out of the application by police for the purpose of interrogation.
3. Remand u/s 167(1) CrPC is called as pre cognizance remand and Remand u/s 309 CrPC is called as post cognizance remand.