Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The two applications are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) In CRM 2439 of 2016 the accused seeks bail whereas in CRR 1107 of 2016 order dated 18th March, 2016 rejecting the prayer for police remand has been assailed at the behest of the de facto complainant.
(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to the aforesaid proceedings is that a first information report was registered under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code by the de facto complainant alleging that the petitioner who was an employee of the de facto complainant had committed theft of Rs. 25 lakhs from the room of the de facto complainant while he had gone abroad. In course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 19th November, 2015 and on 20th November, 2015 he was remanded to police custody for a day. On the next day, that is on 21st November, 2015 the prayer for further police remand was not considered and the learned Magistrate released the accused on bail. Such order of bail was assailed before this Court in CRM 11243 of 2015 and by order dated 02.02.2016 a learned Single Judge of this Court cancelled the order of bail and directed the accused to surrender before the Court below within a week from date. In the said order, this Court observed that the learned Magistrate shall pass a reasoned order on the prayer of the investigating officer for further police custody. The accused did not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed by this Court and on 16.02.2016 a prayer was made for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. Finally on 15.03.2016 the accused surrendered before the learned Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody till 29.03.2016. On 18.03.2016 the investigating agency renewed its prayer for further police custody in terms of the liberty given by this Court in CRM 11243 of 2015 vide order dated 02.02.2016. However, such prayer for police custody was turned down by the Magistrate, inter alia, holding that no police custody could be granted after completion of 14 days from date of production of the accused in terms of Sec. 167(2)(i) Cr.P.C. Such order came to be challenged before this Court in CRR 1107 of 2016.;