the petitioner-accused for a period of five days. The learned Magistrate, while remanding the petitioner to police custody till 6-11-2017, has observed that the submissions of both the parties show that the envelope contained one letter allegedly demanding Rs. 7,00,000/- from the informant and in case of failure to do so, there was a threat to commit death of the informant or any member of his family. To find out as to who has given the said letter to the accused, the presence of the accused is in police custody is necessary, unless and until he is thoroughly interrogated, there cannot be progress in the investigation. Therefore, the accused is remanded to police custody till 06-11-2017. On reading the said order, it is clear that, the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the fact that the applicant is involved in commission of crime allegedly demanding huge amount and in case of failure to do so had issued threat of death to the informant or any member of his family and it is for that reason, for the purpose of further interrogation, and investigation police custody was granted. The observation made by the Court are in consonance with the offence under Section 386 of the IPC. The police custody was, therefore, granted based on those observations. It was not necessary for a Court to mention in the order that the offence under Section 386 of the IPC is made out. The order shows application of mind on the part of the Court. The Court has considered the allegations in the F.I.R. and, therefore, passed the order of remand to police custody. The mentioning of offence under Section 386 of the IPC in the format of the F.I.R. or even in remand application would not preclude the
