ORDER : The learned State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor. 3. The petition is considered at the initial stage for final disposal having regard to the circumstances of the case. The petitioner had lodged a complaint requesting the Police to investigate and trace the whereabouts of her husband, one Bhaskar Shetty who was missing. The same was registered in Crime No. 193/2016. The third respondent namely, the Station House Officer, Manipal Police, registered a case suo motu in Crime No.193/2016, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 204 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity), alleging that the petitioner and others had hatched a conspiracy and committed the murder of Bhaskar Shetty and they had destroyed the evidence in connection with the said crime. Based on the said complaint and the First Information Report, the petitioner and the other accused were taken into custody and the matter is under investigation. The petitioner being a woman, claims that she, being the wife of the deceased Bhaskar Shetty, has been falsely implicated and that she was innocent of any such crime. She was however produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and a remand application was filed requesting police custody of the petitioner. The Magistrate had, by an order dated 8.8.2016, granted police custody for a period of four days. Subsequently, on 12.8.2016, the Magistrate had extended remand till 16.8.2016 for a period of four days. On 16.8.2016, the petitioner was produced from the police custody and she had remained in judicial custody till 24.8.2016 and was detained in the District Jail, Mangalore for a period of eight days. On 24.8.2016, she was again produced before the court and at the request of the Investigation Officer, she was again remanded to judicial custody till 8.9.2016 for a period of 13 days and thereafter, an application was filed on 20.9.2016 seeking police custody. It is that which is the subject matter of the present petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would straight away draw attention to a three judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2001 Crl.LJ 2942. It is that which is the subject matter of the present petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would straight away draw attention to a three judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2001 Crl.LJ 2942. The facts in that case were that on 20.1.1999, an application for anticipatory bail of the appellant was rejected and the appellant had thereafter surrendered before the court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had remanded him to judicial custody. While he was in judicial custody, by order dated 23.12.1999, the matter was adjourned at the request of the Investigation Officer to 2.1.2000. The appellant was again remanded to judicial custody till 2.1.2000 and on that day, at the request of the Investigating agency, for grant of police remand of the appellant, one day’s police remand was granted by the court and the police remand was further extended by one day on 3.1.2000. On 4.1.2000, the Investigation Officer made yet another application seeking further police remand for a period of 7 days. The Judicial Magistrate declined the request and remanded him to judicial custody till 18.1.2000. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2000, the State had filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. A petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’, for brevity) was filed before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to grant police custody. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held that the mandate of Section postulates that there cannot be any detention in police custody, after the expiry of the first 15 days, so far as an accused is concerned. And that period of 15 days had, in that case, admittedly expired on 4.1.2000. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order of the High Court violated the statutory provisions contained in Section 167 CrPC, since it authorises police remand for a period of seven days after the expiry of the first fifteen days period. And that period of 15 days had, in that case, admittedly expired on 4.1.2000. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order of the High Court violated the statutory provisions contained in Section 167 CrPC, since it authorises police remand for a period of seven days after the expiry of the first fifteen days period. And referred to the decision in CBI vs. Special Investigation Cell-I vs. Anupam J Kulkarni, (1992)3 SCC 141 , wherein the ambit and scope of Section 167 CrPC was considered and was held that there cannot be any detention in police custody after the expiry of the first 15 days even in a case where some more offences, either serious or otherwise committed by an accused in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But it was however clarified that the bar did not apply if the same arrested accused was involved in some other or different case arising out of a different transaction, in which event, the period of remand needs to be considered in respect to each of such cases. Therefore, having regard to the position of law as laid down by the apex court, the grant of police custody after the expiry of 15 days would not arise. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case and having regard to the law as laid down by the apex court, the grant of police custody after the expiry of 15 days would not arise and therefore, the application now filed is misconceived and the petitioner could, at best, be remanded to judicial custody and not to police custody. 6. At this stage, it is incidentally pointed out by the learned State Public Prosecutor that allowing this petition when there is no impugned order would not be in order and that it is in the nature of an embargo placed by this court on the court below. Therefore, there shall be no order on the application seeking police custody. It is open for the Magistrate to consider in his discretion whether judicial custody is necessary at all. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order to be furnished to the learned State Public Prosecutor.