JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for the following main relief. "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Palanpur wherein remand application preferred by the petitioner for taking respondents No. 1 and 2 on police remand in the matter of Palanpur City Police Station C.R. No. 216 of 1996 and may be pleased to kindly grant the remand application preferred by the petitioner." 2. The facts of the present case are that C.R. No. 216 of 1996 of Palanpur Police Station, State of Gujarat, for the offence under Section 17 of the NDPS Act came to be registered on a telephonic message on 30.4.1996 from the police control room, Palanpur, which contains the message that one unknown person from Pali (Rajasthan) has given information that one Sumersingh C. Rajpurohit deals in opium. He is staying in Hotel Lajwanti at Palanpur, along with the opium weighing 5 kgs., delivery of the opium is to be given in Palanpur. On receiving this information, the police visited Hotel Lajwanti at Palanpur. Thereupon the hotel owner verified the entries of the register regarding the person holding the guest house. It was disclosed that as per entry No. 604 of the register, one Sumersingh Rajpurohit, resident of Vardhman Market, Pali, had checked in room No. 305 at 21:40 hours on 29.4.1996. The said room was given to him by his father Shantilal. Thereafter, the police team went to room No. 305 and opened the same. No person was found therein. It was learnt that on receiving the information about the raid, the occupant of the room had run away. Thereafter, search of the room was made in presence of Panchas. They found opium weighing 1 kg. 15 gms. The P.I. Mr. Vyas, under the instructions of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, D.S.P., Palanpur, went to Pali along with P.S.I., Rajendra Yagnik and other police constables. The accused Sumersingh was arrested in the intervening night of 2.5.1996 and 3.5.1996 from his house at Pali and brought to Palanpur. As per the information, he had come to Palanpur with 5 Kgs. Of opium and 1 kg. 15 gms. was recovered from room No. 305 of Hotel Lajwanti. The accused Sumersingh was arrested in the intervening night of 2.5.1996 and 3.5.1996 from his house at Pali and brought to Palanpur. As per the information, he had come to Palanpur with 5 Kgs. Of opium and 1 kg. 15 gms. was recovered from room No. 305 of Hotel Lajwanti. Further information was to be collected from the accused as to where he sold the remaining 4 kgs. of opium. Sumersingh was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, on 4.5.1996 and prayed for grant of remand for 14 days. When Sumersingh was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned advocate on behalf of Sumersingh submitted that the accused is an advocate practising at Pali in the State of Rajasthan and he has been falsely arrested at the instance of the owner of the shop, which is in the possession of Sumersingh. It was also pointed out that a civil suit is going on between the owner of the shop and Sumersingh. It was also pointed out that the police is in collusion with the owner of the shop. However, the learned Magistrate granted remand for a period of seven days and directed that the accused shall be produced at 15:30 hours on 10.5.1996 before the Special Judge. 5th May was a holiday and on 6th an identification parade was arranged before the Executive Magistrate, Palanpur, at 16:30 hours. Sumersingh was not identified. The witnesses stated that the accused is not the person who checked in room No. 305 on 29th April 1996. They had not seen the arrested person-Sumersingh earlier. In view of this, on the same day, the police submitted a report before the Special Judge, Palanpur, under Section 169 of the Code and prayed that Sumersingh be released. Mr. R.P. Vaghela, the Additional Sessions Judge did not pass any order thereon on 6th May 1996. On the same day, the accused also filed an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge enlarged Sumersingh on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- by order dated 8.5.1996. The order reads as follows: "Heard, Mr. Parmar for the applicant and P.P. Mr. Jagani. Since even according to the police, the applicant does not appear to be involved in any offence, it is just and proper to release him on bail. 10,000/- by order dated 8.5.1996. The order reads as follows: "Heard, Mr. Parmar for the applicant and P.P. Mr. Jagani. Since even according to the police, the applicant does not appear to be involved in any offence, it is just and proper to release him on bail. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and undertaking that he will remain present in the Court when summoned. Sd/- R.P. Vaghela Addl. Sessions Judge" 3. In view of the aforesaid factual position, while considering two Special Criminal Application Nos. 1203 of 1997 and 1309 of 1997, the judgment of which is reported in 1998(1) GLH 405 , this Court (Coram : N.N. Mathur, J., as His Lordship then was) directed to conclude the investigation pertaining to the crime registered at Pali, Rajasthan. However, the crime registered at Palanpur Police Station, Gujarat remained uninvestigated althrough out and therefore, present respondent No. 1 and one of the co-accused involved in the offence i.e. Mr. R.R. Jain moved two Special Criminal Application Nos. 1079 of 1998 and Special Criminal Application No. 680 of 1999 before this Court which came to be heard and decided by this Court by judgment dated 3.4.2018 whereby this Court has rendered detailed judgment and observed in paragraph 23 as under. "23. The following facts are not in dispute:- 1. The investigation into the FIR No. 403/96 registered at the Kotwali Police Station, Pali, State of Rajasthan is already over and the competent court has taken cognizance of the report filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C. long back at least before more than 10 years. 2. There has been no investigation with regard to the C.R. No. 216/96 registered at the Palanpur District Banaskantha at all. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner Shri I.B. Vyas to transfer the criminal proceeding of the FIR Case No. 403 of 1996 from Pali to be taken with C.R. No. 216/96 at Palanpur purported to have been filed under section 186 of Cr.P.C. stood rejected by a detailed judgment and order dated 4.12.1997 passed by this Court in the Special Criminal Application No. 1302 and 1309 of 1997 titled as IB Vyas vs. State of Gujarat. 4. 4. In light of the above, the only question which requires to be examined is with regard to the investigation of the offence registered as C.R. No. 216 of 1996 at the Palanpur City P.S. which, unfortunately, has remained uninvestigated in spite of the seriousness of the offences involved therein. 5. Briefly stated the offence's pertains to the planting/recovery of 1 1/2 kg of narcotics drug at the Hotel Lajwanti City Palanpur, State of Gujarat. The intimation of narcotics drug being available in the said Hotel is stated to have been received by the control room of the Palanpur district Police through an anonymous caller. 6. Based upon the said recovery/planting of 1 1/2 kg narcotic drugs at the Hotel Lajwanti, City Palanpur, one Advocate [Shri Sumer Singh Rajpurohit who has not been joined as party in the present petition] is stated to have been abducted in the midnight from his residence at Pali, Rajasthan. As recorded by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.12.1997, after the arrest of the said victim - Advocate, a property occupied by him was vacated under the pressure of his alleged implication with the narcotic drug found in Hotel Lajwanti. Surprisingly, as emerged during the investigation of the C.R. No. 403/96 conducted by the Rajasthan Police, a written document was executed for vacating the said property while Shri Sumer Singh Rajpurohit was still in the police custody of the Palanpur police. In the said written agreement, it was shockingly mentioned that if the said Advocate vacates the property, the Palanpur Police would release him from Jail in the said narcotic case. In fact, within only three days of Shri Sumer Singh Rajpurohit remaining in police custody, the property was vacated by his brother and on such vacating of the property, the Palanpur Police filed a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. before the Court saying that the person occupying the room in Hotel Lajwanti where 1 1/2 kg narcotic was found was not Shri Sumer Singh Rajpurohit and that he may be released. The sequence of events are really shocking. More shocking is the fact that though the offence registered as C.R. No. 216/96 at Palanpur is crucial for investigation, no investigation, whatsoever, has taken place. 7. So far as the offence registered as C.R. No. 216/96 at the Palanpur police station regarding planting/recovery of 1 1/2 kg. The sequence of events are really shocking. More shocking is the fact that though the offence registered as C.R. No. 216/96 at Palanpur is crucial for investigation, no investigation, whatsoever, has taken place. 7. So far as the offence registered as C.R. No. 216/96 at the Palanpur police station regarding planting/recovery of 1 1/2 kg. of narcotic drug based upon which an Advocate was falsely arrested and was coerced to vacate the property in three days while in custody is concerned, this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 4.12.1997 recorded as under: "10. I have perused the police diary of C.R. No. 216/96. Nothing substantial has been done in this case. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned APP submitted that the police is in search of the person who gave false information to the police from Pali. For this two computer photographs have been prepared. I cannot understand when even according to the police the said information was received on telephone how and what basis a computer photograph could be prepared. There is no progress beyond this, in this case." It is very sad and unfortunate to note, as informed by the learned Public Prosecutor, that till date there has not been any investigation or progress in the C.R. No. 216/96. So far as the investigation into the offence registered at the Pali Kotwali Police Station is concerned, the facts brought are very shocking. This Court, in the judgment of I.B. Vyas vs. State of Gujarat [supra], after elaborately examining the investigation conducted by the CID, CB, Rajasthan into the offence registered at Pali, State of Rajasthan, being FIR Case No. 403/96 recorded the following facts which have emerged on investigation: i. Shop No. 6 in Vardhaman Market, Pali, belongs to Amribai. She lives in Bombay. Phootarmal holds the Power of Attorney. He is real uncle of Shri R.R. Jain. They were interested in eviction of the premises from Sumersingh and his brother. ii. Though Amribai is not the real sister of Mr. R.R. Jain, as she married to Javant Raj in place of his sister, she was treated as real sister. She is an elderly lady aged 55 years. Her husband-Jawantraj is carrying own business in Bombay. Mr. Jain has studied in Bombay staying with his sister Amribai. In one of the reception in the village, Mr. R.R. Jain said that whatever he is today, is because of Javant Raj. iii. She is an elderly lady aged 55 years. Her husband-Jawantraj is carrying own business in Bombay. Mr. Jain has studied in Bombay staying with his sister Amribai. In one of the reception in the village, Mr. R.R. Jain said that whatever he is today, is because of Javant Raj. iii. Smt. Amribai, Javant Raj Ji. Phootarmal and R.R. Jain all had assembled in village Mohrai to attend the marriage of the son of Amribai, during the period 25.4.1996 to 29.4.1996. The investigation has recorded statement of number of witnesses about the participation of these persons in the marriage. As per the information given by the Gujarat High Court, Hon'ble Justice R.R. Jain was not on duty during the period 25.4.1996 to 29.4.1996. As per the report of the driver, Mr. Jain left Ahmedabad on 25.4.1996. Police has also collected copies of the petrol consumption bills which indicate that petrol was filled in his official car GJ-1G 1904 at Sirohi Road, Sumerpur, Abu Road. Statement of Addl. Superintendent of Police Officers at Bali have been recorded, which shows Shri Jain's presence in Bijapur and near villages during the said period, as on his telephonic request, Police arrangements were made. iv. There are statement of witnesses to the effect that during marriage, there were talks in the family about the shop in Vardhaman Market. Shri Javant Raj had; agreed to sell the shop for Rs. 6 lakhs, but the deal could not be settled as Phootarmal was demanding Rs. 8 lakhs. Vacant possession of the shop was felt necessary. They disbursed on 29th April 96. Palanpur is on: the way from Bijapur to Ahmedabad. v. The Investigating Agency has also collected telephone bills of Phootermal from Pali, telephone bills of Sanjiv Bhatt, DSP,; Palanpur (57104) and that also the telephone bills of Shri R.R. Jain (7865568) at Ahmedabad. Police has collected all relevant record from S.T.D. Telephone Booths at Palanpur and Pali. Relevant evidence in: that regard has been recorded. There are outgoing calls from the telephone of Sanjiv Bhatt to Shri R.R. Jain at Ahmedabad on various dates, i.e. 5.3.1996, 6.3.96, 22.6.96, 24.3.96, 2.4.96, 8.4.96, 9.4.96, 10.4.96, 14.4.96, 4.5.96 and 7.5.96. Similarly there are outgoing calls from the telephone of Shri R.R. Jain to Sanji v. Bhatt at Palanpur on 5.3.96, 31.3.96 and 10.4.96, 30.4.96, 4.5.96, 6.5.96 and 8.5.96. vi. Similarly there are outgoing calls from the telephone of Shri R.R. Jain to Sanji v. Bhatt at Palanpur on 5.3.96, 31.3.96 and 10.4.96, 30.4.96, 4.5.96, 6.5.96 and 8.5.96. vi. On 30.4.96, before the arrest of Sumersingh and the day on which opium alleged to have been planted in the Hotel at Palanpur, there are telephone calls between the alleged conspirators. There are noticeable outgoing calls from the official telephone No. 7865568 of Shri R.R. Jain. vii. Hrs. Seconds 20.23 206 Phootarmal, Pali 21.08 89 -do- 21.17 145 Sanjiv Bhatt, Palanpur 21.13 105 Phootarmal, Pali vii. On 3.5.96, the day on which Sumersingh was brought to Palanpur, there is one call to Phootarmal at 21.12 hrs., on 4.5.96 again there are outgoing calls from the telephone of R.R. Jain to Phootarmal at 09.11 hours then at 9.20 hours. This talk to Phootarmal is a long one. Thereafter there is a talk to Sanjiv Bhatt at 9.43 hours. Again call to Phootarmal at 9.45 hours, 14.05 hours to Phootarmal, 21.09 hours to Phootarmal and immediately thereafter at 21.11 hours, to Sanjiv Bhatt. On 5.5.1996, the day on which agreement to vacate the premises is executed and Sumersingh was assured that he will be released, there are outgoing calls from the telephone of Shri Jain to Sanjiv Bhatt at 10.08 hrs., 0.53 hrs., 18.16 hrs. and 23.09 hrs. Suffice it to say that the computer record collected by the Police from Telephone Department shows that there had been 16 rounds of telephonic calls from Pali to Ahmedabad made by Phootarmal to Shri Jain and Ahmedabad to Palanpur made from the telephone of Shri Jain to the telephone of Shri Bhatt. Police has collected tape recorded talk of Phootarmal to the telephone of Shri Jain. viii. Investigating Agency has collected various documents pertaining to tenancy of the shop, Civil Suit and the agreement dated 5.5.96 signed by Mohanlal to deliver the vacant possession and another agreement written by Phootarmal through his son Rohit, in which it is mentioned to get Sumersingh released and if it is not done, he will have right to get possession back of the shop and the agreement shall stand cancelled. Key of the shop was given to Narayansingh, mediator. ix. Key of the shop was given to Narayansingh, mediator. ix. Official record showing the visit of I.B. Vyas and Police party to Pali in civil dress, without informing the local police in jeep of fake number plate has been collected. Relevant record from RTO, Udaipur has been collected about the use of jeep with fake number plate by Mr. I.B. Vyas. Statements of number of witnesses have been recorded. x. Police has also collected copies of the judicial proceedings of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Palanpur during the period 4.5.96 to 14.5.96, which reflects pressure on police and may be to some extent on judiciary. xi. Police has collected documentary and oral evidence to show that Sumersingh was in Pali on 29th and 30th April 1996. Material has also been collected as to how Shanti Lal made a false entry in the Register of Lajwanti Guest House and forged the signature of Sumersingh. xii. On 26.11.96, Mr. M.D. Vaishnav, produced an application of Shri R.R. Jain addressed to the Bar Association for compromise. On 27.11.96, Mr. Vaishnav, Pathanjali Joshi, Bhagirath, Advocates talked to Shri Jain the talk was taped by Sidheswar Puri from another room the audio cassette has been produced and the same is with the Investigating Agency. According to the complainant, it contains extra-judicial confession of Shri R.R. Jain." 4. Indisputably, the crime registered at Palanpur Police Station remained uninvestigated all throughout. In that view of the matter, this Court in the aforesaid order directed to constitute Special Investigating Team and in pursuance thereof, the State of Gujarat constituted the team consisting of Mr. Ajaykumar Tomar, Additional Director General of Police, Mr. Dipanker Trivedi, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Mr. Virendra Singh Yadav, Superintendent of Police who took over the investigation in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and on 5.9.2018, the present respondents came to be arrested and within 24 hours, they came to be produced before the learned Magistrate and also sought for police custody for carrying out left investigation. The application for remand detailing for about 17 grounds was submitted to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, while considering the said application, translated vernacular language Gujarati into English for about 6 - 7 grounds and thereafter referring the ratio laid down in the case of Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja Vs. The application for remand detailing for about 17 grounds was submitted to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, while considering the said application, translated vernacular language Gujarati into English for about 6 - 7 grounds and thereafter referring the ratio laid down in the case of Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2002 (1) GLH 645, without recording any reasons or even appreciating any ground or any sort of judgments of this Court in pursuance of which the investigation has started, though in paragraph 10, learned Magistrate has recorded the finding as under. "Taking into consideration the grounds stated in the present application, the investigation proceedings in the case diary in light of the above stated position of law, it transpires that in the present application the accused was already in the custody of police from last 24 hours and there is no adequate reasons shown to give remand in the particular case. As the matter is of 1006 and there is no justifiable ground to grant the police remand at this stage. The presence of accused is not found necessary for the investigation in the present case." 5. In view of the aforesaid position of law, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that though grounds were urged, without appreciating, unreasoned order is passed and for unearthing the deep rooted conspiracy which has led to filing of the complaint at Palanpur Police Station, Gujarat as well as Pali, Rajasthan. Two separate complaints came to be registered and the complaint lodged at Pali has come to an end to its logical conclusion for investigation and also chargesheeted the accused, they were put to trial and thereafter the matter is lying before the Apex Court at present. 6. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that so far as the crime registered at Palanpur being CR No. 216 of 1996 is concerned, the same remains uninvestigated al throughout and for effective investigation, the police custody is necessary. 6. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that so far as the crime registered at Palanpur being CR No. 216 of 1996 is concerned, the same remains uninvestigated al throughout and for effective investigation, the police custody is necessary. While pointing out the judgments of this Court as well as detailed direction issued by this Court recently in the aforesaid decision under which the Special Investigating Team is being constituted, learned Public Prosecutor argued that learned Magistrate could have appreciated and could have remanded the accused for carrying out effective investigation which has not been done so far and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without assigning any reasons and result of non-application of mind and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused are required to be remanded to the police custody for about 14 days. 7. On the other-hand, Mr. I.H. Syed, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has taken this court through the entire Record and Proceedings of the case which has relevance with the present crime in question as well as the crime which came to be registered at Pali, Rajasthan and the matter carried upto the Apex Court and has argued that almost entire investigation is being carried out at Rajasthan wherein the police at Rajasthan filed the chargesheet and the competent court has also taken cognizance, material portion of investigation has already been over and as regards to deep rooted conspiracy, no custodial interrogation of the present respondents is required as according to his submission, as the present respondents have already answered the questions while investigation was being carried out at Rajasthan and that fact has also been recorded in the aforesaid reported judgment of this Court so far as investigation concerning the crime registered at Rajasthan is concerned and no doubt it was already concluded. 8. Mr. Syed further contended that since the entire incident has occurred because of deep rooted conspiracy hatched for vacating the house situated at Pali belonging to near relative of Mr. 8. Mr. Syed further contended that since the entire incident has occurred because of deep rooted conspiracy hatched for vacating the house situated at Pali belonging to near relative of Mr. R.R. Jain for which the proper interrogation of the present respondents has already been carried out while investigating the crime registered at Rajasthan and therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required so far as the present case is concerned and whatever documents and evidence collected during the course of investigation of the crime registered at Palanpur Police Station, Gujarat are also forming the part of the crime registered at Rajasthan. 9. Similarly, he has also argued that this Court while delivering the aforesaid reported judgment highly criticized the role of the police of Gujarat while investigating the crime registered at State of Gujarat and while criticizing, it was noted that so far as the investigation pertaining to the crime registration No. 216 of 1996 at Palanpur Police Station is concerned, it is merely a farce and the said fact is also very much evident. Soon after the registering the aforesaid crime, the report under section 169 also came to be filed by some police official for which the investigation is required to be carried out. This Court is not entering into and refrained from making any such comment on this aspect, but the manner in which the investigation was carried out is clearly spelling out the deep rooted conspiracy and it is rightly held by the Honourable Mr. Justice N.N. Mathur (as His Lordship then was) and rightly criticized the role so far as the investigation of the case at Palanpur Police Station is concerned. This Court also at the behest of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.R. Jain directed the investigation in the aforesaid case registered at Palanpur Police Station. 10. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, arguments advanced by Mr. Syed, learned advocate that since the documents as well as reply tendered by the present respondents before the police at Rajasthan which are also forming the part of the record and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the present respondents is not needed in the detection of crime registered at Palanpur Police Station is not at all acceptable to this Court. Syed, learned advocate that since the documents as well as reply tendered by the present respondents before the police at Rajasthan which are also forming the part of the record and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the present respondents is not needed in the detection of crime registered at Palanpur Police Station is not at all acceptable to this Court. This Court also noticed in the present proceedings that both the incidents are different, both the crime registers are different and both the complainants are also different and in that view of the matter, since the complainants are different, the argument advanced by Mr. Syed, learned advocate that the case at Rajasthan and the case at Palanpur Police Station, both are the same is not accepted and even that was not the case of the present applicant upto 3.4.2018 as the present respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.R. Jain sought direction of investigation into the crime register No. 216 of 1996 at Palanpur Police Station is an afterthought argument and not accepted on the factual scenario, for the reasons noted above. 11. Mr. Syed, learned advocate also argued that the case is very old and this Court being the protector of fundamental rights may also look and appreciate that the present respondents may not be put to harassment of the police and remanded to the police custody as the material has already been disclosed. 12. Mr. Nigam Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has argued that respondent No. 1 was working as Police Inspector in subordination of Superintendent of Police and at the dictation of superior officer, he has acted and he was not the member of any such conspiracy and therefore, considering the present his physical condition, he may not be remanded to the police custody. 13. This Court has gone through the application submitted by the prosecution for getting remand, the case diary as well as also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Syed and Mr. Nigam Shukla, learned advocates for the respondents. 14. On overall appreciation of the factual scenario and the shocking scenario which is emerging out that though the crime was registered for about 22 years back which remained uninvestigated all throughout and the case has been triggered for investigation at the behest of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Syed and Mr. Nigam Shukla, learned advocates for the respondents. 14. On overall appreciation of the factual scenario and the shocking scenario which is emerging out that though the crime was registered for about 22 years back which remained uninvestigated all throughout and the case has been triggered for investigation at the behest of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.R. Jain who sought for investigation to be carried out through another police agency i.e. CBI. At their instance, this Court passed the order as narrated above. In pursuance thereof, during the course of investigation, as noted above, the prosecution submitted for about 17 grounds. This Court has gone through the aforesaid two judgments delivered by this Court. This Court is also made aware as regards to the proceedings initiated before the various courts at Rajasthan, offence committed at Rajasthan as well as various petitions filed before the Apex Court including the State of Gujarat wherein also so far as the crime in question alleged to have been committed at Palanpur, relief of stay was also asked by the State of Gujarat. 15. On overall consideration of the matter, this Court is subjectively satisfied that the incident of planting opium at Lajvant Hotel at Palanpur is deep rooted conspiracy wherein clear involvement of the respondents and others is clearly emerging out and therefore for unearthing deep rooted conspiracy, special team came to be constituted by the order of this Court at the behest of the respondents themselves. In that view of the matter, custodial interrogation is required to be carried out by handing over police custody during the course of investigation. Though, learned Magistrate while considering the application for remand adopted very casual and formal approach and not recorded any reasons. Even the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind totally. The impugned order runs into one line as in view of the ratio laid down in Jayarajsinh Temubha Jadeja (supra) case and for the same reason, as recorded in the said order, police custody cannot be handed over and in the present case, since the case was registered before 22 years, for that simple reason, the application for remand came to be rejected. 16. 16. This Court is subjectively satisfied that for unearthing deep rooted conspiracy which has been alleged to have been hatched by high profile persons is required to be investigated thoroughly giving full free hand to the Special Investigating Team and for which custodial interrogation for longer period is needed and this Court is satisfied to hand over the police custody for a period of 10 days commencing from tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. 17. It is required to be noted that Mr. Syed repeatedly drawn the attention of this Court as regards the proceedings of the crime registered at Rajasthan which has been carried upto the Apex Court wherein the proceedings are stayed and leave is granted and the same is pending till now. As noted above, this Court is subjectively satisfied that this case is totally distinct and separate and separate crime has been registered and the complainant himself has been turned out to be the accused in the present case registered at Palanpur Police Station. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Learned Magistrate concerned is directed to hand over the custody of the present respondents accused commencing from 12.9.2018 at 10.00 morning for about 10 days i.e. upto 21.9.2018 till 5.00 p.m. and thereafter on completion of remand period, learned Magistrate shall secure the presence of the present respondents accused for handing over to the judicial custody in accordance with law. 19. It is needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are made only for the purpose of deciding the present application and therefore, the court concerned may not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove while deciding the trial or proceedings any further. Direct service is permitted Today.