Trial Procedure

SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON DEFAULT BAIL U/S 167 (2) CrPC

 

follow us on twitter

 

 

Syed Mohd Kazmi vs State 2013 AIR SC 152, 2013 CrLJ 200

Bail on default in filing charge sheet–Prior to the date of expiry of 90 days which is the initial period for filing the charge-sheet,prosecution had neither filed the charge-sheet nor filed an application for extension–Prosecution submitting an application seeking extention of time for filing charge-sheet after filing application by accused/respondent. Bail granted.

We are unable to appreciate the procedure adopted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which has been endorsed by the High Court and we are of the view that the Appellant acquired the right for grant of statutory bail on 17th July, 2012, when his custody was held to be illegal by the Additional Sessions Judge since his application for statutory bail was pending at the time when the application for extension of time for continuing the investigation was filed by the prosecution. In our view, the right of the Appellant to grant of statutory bail remained unaffected by the subsequent application and both the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.

UOI VS NIRALA YADAV  2014 (3) BCrC 110 SC, 2014LawSuit(SC) 525

2014 (8) Scale 9, 2014 (2) GLH 557, 2014 (3) RCR(Cri) 534, 2014 AIR(SC) 3036, 2014 CrLJ 3952, 2014 (86) AllCriC 955, 2014 (4) MadLJ(Cri) 323, 2014 (9) SCC 457, 2014 (4) PLJR(SC) 131, 2014 AIR(SC)(Cri) 1724, 2014 AIR(SCW) 4298, 2015 (1) MPJR 1, 2014 (8) JT 610

Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Section 167(2)–[Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302,304,353.323,149,148 and 147–Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act,2002,Section 49(2)(b)–Bail on default in filing charge sheet–Prior to the date of expiry of 90 days which is the initial period for filing the charge-sheet,prosecution had neither filed the charge-sheet nor filed an application for extension–Prosecution submitting an application seeking extention of time for filing charge-sheet after filing application by accused/respondent–The day the accused filed the application for benefit of the default provision, the Court required the accused to file a rejoinder affidavit by the time the initial period provided under the statute expired–Adjournment by Magistrate was misconceived–Court cannot act to extinguish the right of an accused if the law so confers on him–Sheer negligence in not filing the application within the time by prosecution would frustrate or destroy the legal right of accused which act is not permissible–High Court rightly overturned the order refusing bail and extending the benefit to respondent.                         [Para 41]

————————————————————————————————-

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2)–Bail in default in filing chargesheet–Principle laid down in Para 54 and 58 of Pragyan Singh Thakur’s case do not state the correct principle of law–In view of subsequent decision of large Bench that cannot be treated be a good law.                                                  [Para 40]

SURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2013 (4) AD(SC) 317, 2013 AIR(SCW) 1271, 2013 (1) SCR 1037, 2013 (2) MPHT 353, 2013 (2) RCR(Cri) 170, 2013 (2) SCC(Cri) 229, 2013 (1) SCC(L&S) 480, 2013 (2) AIRBomR 1166, 2013 (8) JT 70, 2013 (3) Crimes(SC) 260, 2013 CrLJ 1625, 2013 (1) LW(Cri) 387, 2013 (2) Scale 425, 2013 (3) SCC 77, 2013 (4) AIRJharHCR 156, 2013 (82) AllCriC 35, 2013 (2) CriCC 1, 2013 (2) AICLR 787, 2013 (124) AllIndCas 1, 2013 AIR(SC)(Cri) 994, 2013 (2) MhLJ(Cri) 477, 2013 (2) CalCriLR 545, 2013 (1) MadLW(Cri) 387, 2013 (3) JCR 12

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 167(2)(a)(ii), 309 – power of Magistrate to pass orders of remand even beyond period envisaged u/s. 167(2) – statutory bail – when could be claimed – right of an accused to be released on bail under Sec 167(2) on ground that despite charge sheet having been filed, no cognizance has been taken on basis thereof – if charge sheet is filed statutory bail cannot be claimed – if accused could not be prosecuted for want of sanction and charge sheet is not filed in time, accused cannot claim statutory bail – evidence on record showed that both charge-sheet as also supplementary charge-sheet were filed within 90 days from date of petitioner’s arrest and remand to police custody – filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with provisions of Sec 167(2)(a)(ii) and whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Sec 167 is concerned.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 156, 197 – statutory bail – investigation and sanction to prosecute – distinction – concept of investigation is quite distinct from concept of sanction for prosecution – both stand on different footings – sanction is an enabling provision to prosecute, which is totally separate from concept of investigation which is concluded by filing of charge-sheet – merely because sanction had not been obtained to prosecute accused and to proceed to stage of Sec 309 CrPC, it cannot be said that accused is entitled to grant of statutory bail, as envisaged in Sec 167 CrPC – petition dismissed.

  Sanjay Dutt v. State, 1994 5 SCC 410,

wherein the said Bench had occasion to consider the effect of non-completion of investigation within the time stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel pointed out that in the said decision, it has, inter alia, been held that default in completion of investigation within 180 days did not give a fully indefeasible right to the accused to be released on bail. Such a right arises from the time of default in filing of the charge-sheet and continues till the filing thereof, but does not survive once the charge-sheet is filed. Thereafter, grant of bail would be decided on merits. Mr. Lalit submitted that the indefeasible right referred to in the said decision would become absolute in the event an application for bail was filed after the expiry of the statutory period stipulated by the statute, but before filing of the charge- sheet.

Natabar Parida v. the State of Orissa, 1975 2 SCC 220,

which was decided by a Bench of 2-Judges, who also had occasion to consider the impact of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the proviso (a) thereto. In the said case, the powers of the High Court to pass an order of remand of an accused on the basis of inherent powers, was sought to be negated. It was ultimately held that the Court will have no inherent power of remand of an accused to any custody, unless the power is conferred by law. Mr. Lalit urged that since remand orders passed against the Petitioner in the present case did not have the sanction either of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 309 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner was entitled to be released on statutory bail forthwit

2015(11)LJSOFT27)
Default bail _ Application filed u/s 439(1) of Cr.P.C. _ No prohibition that the accused cannot raise the ground of default bail u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. _ Ground of default of the investigating agency to file charge-sheet within the prescribed period can be resorted to in an application filed u/s 439(1) of Cr.P.C.

Jitendra Deotare VS Mah  2008 ALL MR CRI 2458

A.  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167(2)–Bail on default in filing chargesheet–Time which is crucial or material is not when Magistrate considers application for bail and passes order, but the time of filing application for bail and chargesheet is only relevant.                  [Para 8]

2006 ALL MR CRI 3110 2006 CrLJ 4266 Nijamuddin Mohd Vs MAh

167(2) Bail. Written application not necessary, even oral application would suffice the purpose.

2013 crlj 200 and 2014 ALL SCR 3451 syed mohd vs state

right of u/s 167 even if chargesheet is filed

Rajesh Pujari Vs Mah

2008 (5) MhLJ 843, 2008 (6) MhLJ 176, 2008 CrLJ 3810, 2008 (5) BCR 682, 2008 (2) BCR(Cri) 404, 2008 AllMR(Cri) 1912

The applicants were arrested on 25th September 2006 for the alleged offences under sections 395, 397 and 342 of the I.P.C. Thereafter the provisions of the MCOC Act were applied and on 10th January 2007 they were shown as arrested under the MCOC Act. The charge sheet/challan was filed against the applicants on 20th March 2007 in the Court of JMFC, Thane – a Court which had no jurisdiction to try the applicants for an offence under the MCOC Act. It is not clear whether the charge sheet was returned by the JMFC, Thane whether it was transmitted by the magistrate to the special Court, or returned to the police who then filed it in the Special Court. The undisputed fact, however, is that the charge sheet/challan was filed or came to the Special Court constituted under the MCOC Act on 30th June 2007, that is beyond the period of 180 days of the arrest and first remand to police custody of the applicants. The applicants, therefore, moved the Special Court for bail on the ground that the charge sheet/challan was not filed in the competent court within 180 days of their arrest. The Special Court, however, rejected the application holding that filing of a charge sheet before the JMFC, Thane on 20th March 2007 was a technical mistake and as the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed in the court, though having no jurisdiction,the Court cannot take a rigid approach when such a mistake was committed.

Mushtaq Ahmed Vs State of Mah

2009 CrLJ 3952, 2009 (7) SCC 480, 2009 (3) SCC(Cri) 449, 2009 (8) JT 250, 2010 (1) BCR(Cri) 194, 2009 AIR(SC) 2772, 2009 AIR(SCW) 4202, 2009 (4) AIRBomR 47, 2009 (5) AIRBomR 47, 2009 (4) MhLJ(Cri) 131, 2010 (5) RCR(Cri) 122, 2009 (7) Scale 642, 2009 (8) Scale 642, 2009 (8) SCR 465

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 – Sec 12, 21(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 167(2), 439 – power of extension of remand – rejection of bail – arrest of accused made on 13.5.2006, initial period of 90 days to complete investigation expiring on 6.8.2006 – extension sought on 3.8.2006 allowed for further 15 days by Special Court – on 21.8.2006 further extension of time was sought for and granted till 4.9.2006 on which date charge sheet was filed – bail application was filed on default of Prosecution in filing charge sheet within specified period of 90 days – bail application rejected by Special Court and in appeal thereagainst High Court holding impugned order to be not suffering from any infirmity – there is nothing in language of second proviso inserted in Sec 167(2) CrPC by Sec 21(2) of Act to indicate that power of extension can be exercised only once – Special Court can exercise power from time to time – however, total period for filing charge-sheet/challan cannot exceed 180 days – on 4.9.2006 charge sheet has been filed and on that day itself, application for bail was filed by appellants on default ground and therefore, application for bail was rejected by courts below – impugned judgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference – appeals dismissed.

Mohd Alimuddin Vs State of mah

2003 (3) MhLJ 93, 2003 AllMR(Cri) 474, 2003 (3) MhLR 458

In the case under consideration, admittedly, the appellants were not produced before the Designated Court on 12.9.2002 while hearing the extension applications and as such, it cannot be said that appropriate notice had been given to the appellants in connection with the application for extension filed by the prosecution agency. Besides this, after careful scrutiny of the application/report of the Public Prosecutor, we find that the same does not at all enumerate progress of investigation. In the report, general averments are made that both the accused have played very significant participation in the crime of extorting money from one Ali reddy of Andhra Pradesh; that naxalite Bacanna is acting in the southern part of the district along with others, who are at large and yet to be arrested and that naxalite activities are intensified in the district of gadchiroli which has affected the investigation. Except for these general accounts, no progress of investigation as such, during the period of 90 days, has been given in the Public Prosecutor’s report. This, prima facie, shows that the Public Prosecutor has not applied his mind as required in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra).

State of Maha VS Bharti Verma

2002 (1) EastCriC 77, 2002 (1) AllCriR 181, 2002 (1) AllCriR 482, 2002 AllMR(Cri) 1215, 2002 BCR(Cri) 1, 2002 CalCriLR 220, 2002 (1) CalHN 95, 2002 (1) PLJR(SC) 255, 2002 CrLR 4, 2002 (1) RCR(Cri) 99, 2001 (8) Scale 367, 2002 SCCriR 161, 2002 (2) GCD 1314, 2002 (1) UC 188, 2002 (1) UJ 233, 2001 (10) JT 219, 2001 (10) AD(SC) 1, 2002 AIR(SC) 285, 2001 AIR(SCW) 5003, 2002 CrLJ 575, 2001 (4) CurCriR 347, 2001 (4) LRI 1216, 2002 (2) MhLR 475, 2002 (1) RajCriC 255, 2002 (2) SCC 121, 2002 SCC(Cri) 299, 2002 (1) SCJ 41, 2001 (Supp5) SCR 422, 2001 (8) Supreme 577, 2002 (1) Crimes(SC) 218, 2002 (44) AllCriC 773

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sec 167(2) proviso – India Penal Code, 1860 – Sec 120-B, 420, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C – Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 – Sec 21, 23 – counterfeit notes intercepted – respondent was arrested on 1.4.2001 or offences u/S.489A, 489B, 489C, 120B, 420 of IPC – respondent moved for bail principally on ground that charge sheet was not laid within 90 days – Single Judge of High Court allowed her to be released on bail – challenged – contention of State is that period of 90 days envisaged in Sec 167(2)of Code should be reckoned from date when police started investigation into offences under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 – sanction for further investigation under Maharashtra Act granted on 21.4.2001 – charge-sheet filed on 12.7.2001 – period of 90 days would be counted from 1.4.2001 and not from 21.4.2001 – respondent is entitled to bail as charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days – appeal dismissed.

Anwar Noor Mohd Vs State of Mah 2000 LawSuit(Bom) 1004

Chargesheet submitted before bail could be availed. Bail granted.

bail granted for failure to complete the investigation within the period prescribed under Section 167 (2) cannot be cancelled on the mere presentation of chargesheet at any time thereafter. It was further held that there must exit special reasons for doing so, besides the fact that the chargesheet releveals the commission of a non-bailable crime. This being the position, the learned Special Judge was not right in requiring the Applicant-Accused to prefer a fresh application for bail.

State vs Rajesndra Nahar2004 All MR CRI 1054

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 167–Right of detenu for being rleased on bail on expiry of period of 60 or 90 days–Application has to be filed prior  to filing of chargesheet–Indefeasible right to be released on bail under Section 167 cannot be invoked after filing of chargesheet.                  

It is well established position in law by now that the indefeasible right available to the accused for being released on expiry of 60 or 90 days is not available automatically and for exercising such a right, an application is requried to be made with an offer to comply with the conditions of bail and such an application must be made before the charge sheet is filed. If the application was made before the charge sheet was filed and even if it remained to be undecided by the time the charge sheet was filed, it is now well settled that the said application has to be decided and the benefit is required to be given to the accused. Such is not the case at hand. The charge sheet has been filed on 9-1-2002 and the bail applications were filed thereafter and, therefore, the accused were not entitled to invoke the indefeasible right available under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.        [Para 11]

State VS Bharati Chandimal 2002 (1) B CrC 505

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973–Section 167(2) Proviso–Release of accused on bail–Accused arrested for offence under Penal Code–Produced before Magistrate who remanded her to custody on 2-4-01–During investigation police discovered that accused had also commited crime under Mah. Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999–Held that go days envisaged in S. 167(2) shouldbe reckoned not from date when investigation legally commenced under MCOC Act, on 21-4-01 after  obtaining sanction of appropriate authority–But, from date of initial remand to custody i.e. 2-4-01–Since chargesheet not laid within go days from 2-4-01, accused held to be entitled to be released on bail.

Aslam Babalal Desai vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 1

Bail granted under section 167(2) cannot be cancelled on the ground that chargesheet has been filed subsequently.

2014 (2)  MHLJ CRI 528 (Tahiliyani J)

Bail u/s 167(2) is to be granted when order is passed before filing of charge sheet and surety is furnished after filing of chargesheet.

WEST BENGAL VS DINESH DALMIYA 2007 ALL MR CRI 1460

Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Section 167(2)–[Indian] Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302,304,353.323,149,148 and 147–Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act,2002,Section 49(2)(b)–Bail on default in filing charge sheet–Prior to the date of expiry of 90 days which is the initial period for filing the charge-sheet,prosecution had neither filed the charge-sheet nor filed an application for extension–Prosecution submitting an application seeking extention of time for filing charge-sheet after filing application by accused/respondent–The day the accused filed the application for benefit of the default provision, the Court required the accused to file a rejoinder affidavit by the time the initial period provided under the statute expired–Adjournment by Magistrate was misconceived–Court cannot act to extinguish the right of an accused if the law so confers on him–Sheer negligence in not filing the application within the time by prosecution would frustrate or destroy the legal right of accused which act is not permissible–High Court rightly overturned the order refusing bail and extending the benefit to respondent.

Mohd Alimuddin Vs Mah 2003 (3) Mah LR 458

Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Section 49 –Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 167(2)–Offences under POTA–Grant of bail —  Accused arrested for offences under Penal Code and POTA –Delay in completing investigation –Prosecution making application and requesting for extension without enumerating therein progress of investigation –Notice of extension application not given to accused –Report of Public Prosecutor also not in order –Accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail.                                                       

Accused appellants were not produced before the Designated Court on 12.9.2002 while hearing the extension applications and as such, it cannot be said that appropriate notice had been given to the appellants in connection with the application for extension filed by the prosecution agency. Besides this, after careful scrutiny of the application/report of the Public Prosecutor, it is found that the same does not at all enumerate progress of investigation. In the report, general averments are made that both the accused have played very significant participation in the crime of extorting money from persons and that naxalite activities are intensified in the district which has affected the investigation. Except for these general accounts, no progress of investigation as such, during the period of 90 days, has been given in the Public Prosecutor’s report. This, prima facie, shows that the Public Prosecutor has not applied his mind as required in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court.

SHIVAJI JAIBHAYE VS MAH 2010 ALL MR CRI 3794

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,Section  167(2)(b)–Constitution of India, Article 21–Indefeasible right of bail–Applicant arrested on 02-10-2009 and produced before Court on 03-10-2009–Period of 90 days for filing charge sheet came to be over on 31-12-2009–Application for bail filed on 91st day on which daycharge sheet came to be filed–Since filing of charge sheet after 90 days would not act to the detriment of applicant, he held entitled to be released on bail.                [Paras 3 and 4]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 167(2)(b), 437 – Constitution of Indian – Art 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sec 457, 394, 376(2) – right to bail – application before JMFC rejected and revision was filed before Additional Sessions Judge also rejected by holding that period of 90 days to be computed by excluding first day of remand when accused is produced before Magistrate along with remand report – on 91st day applicant had filed application for bail under 167(2)(b) CPC – Court had fixed matter for say of other side – at that time, say was filed that now charge sheet has been filed and offence is serious and hence application be rejected – Power of Magistrate under this section is fettered – an accused is entitled to apply for bail in some cases on expiry of 90 days and in other cases on expiry of 60 days – on expiry of aforesaid period Magistrate has no power to remand applicant-accused to further custody – any further delay would be without process of law – accused has to be released on bail – further process can start under Sec 437 CrPC facts of this case are similar – application allowed.

KAMAL NARAYAN VS CHATTISGARH 2011(1) BCrC 788

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985,Section 36-A(4) Proviso–Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Section 167(2)–Bail in default of filing of charge sheet–Seeking extension of time for filing charge sheet is mandatory and justification provided by prosecution in opposition of grant of bail would not be a substitute for report of Public Prosecutor–Accused would be entitled to bail in default of filing ofcharge sheet within 180 days if there is no extension by Court on a report of Public Prosecutor.

Umaji Raghunath Shende vs Mah 2012 All MR Cri 1204                                                                                                                                                  

167 Bail granted- Could not furnish immediate surety. Chargesheet filed subsecuently. Filing of chargesheet subsequently does not make any difference accused has right to be released.

Rajubhai @ Jacob Mathew Pinto & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AllMR(Cri) 290

the application for being released on bail was filed at 11 a.m. and at 3 p.m. prosecution filed chargesheet; the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in by relying upon Division Bench decision of this Court in case ofRamesh Madhukar V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1999 2 MhLJ 554 and Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s case held that once right to be released on bail is accrued and availed of by filing application for bail, filing of chargesheet posterior in point of time, will make no difference to the legal position

Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi (supra) ,

the Supreme court has made it very clear that under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. That means, imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. Hence, it could not be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more.

Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashirkhan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 AllMR(Cri) 3110

the decision in case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s case Division Bench of this Court in case of Jitendra s/o Maroti Deotare & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2008 AllMR(Cri) 2458 observed that : “If it is found that, as a matter of fact that no such challan was filed within the period prescribed from the date of arrest, such applicant/accused must be held to have exercised the said right, even if, such application is posted for consideration or for orders before the court after some time or even after the Magistrate refuses the application erroneously and the accused moves the higher forum for getting formal order of being released on bail in enforcement of his indefeasible right. Filing of challan at subsequent stage will not take away the right of the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that such an interpretation would subserve the purpose and the object for which the provision in the shape of proviso to subsection (2) of section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code has been made.”

This is the case where not only the accused availed of his right, but order for his release on bail was passed by the learned Magistrate. That being so, the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed serious error in refusing to enlarge the accused on bail.

Padmavati Vs Mah

2013 (8) RCR(Cri) 2196, 2013 (3) BCR(Cri) 174, 2013 AllMR(Cri) 2527

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 167(2)(a)(ii) – bail – application for – granted -charge-sheet was filed – accused applicant was furnished bail on same day – JMFC held, right of accused to furnish bail, stood forfeited as charge-sheet has been filed – revision order of JMFC confirmed in revision – hence this application – when initial order was passed, on same day, charge sheet was filed – right available to accused in terms of Sec 167(2)(a)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code as indefeasible right for default, stand extinguished – application lacks merit – dismissed accordingly.

Rajesh Solanki Vs Ravindra Shelatkar 2011 ALL MR Cri 1761

A.  Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Section 167(2)–Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985, Section 36-A(4)–Bail in default–Outer limit of 180 days for bail is provided for an offence involving commercial quantity whereas if quantity is less than commercial quantity accused will be entitled to be released on bail if charge sheet is not filed within 60 days after arrest.                        [Para 12]

————————————————————————————————-

B.  Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Section 439(2)–Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,Section 36-A(4)–Cancellation of bail–Accused were  found in possession of 340 grams of heroin i.e. opium derivative–C.A. report indicating that the traces of heroin and Morphine along with opium alkaloids were found in the said samples and there is nothing to show that any neutral substance was found in said substance–Contraband since is commercial quantity, order granting bail for non filing of charge sheet within 60 days by holding that contraband was less than commercial quantity, is erroneous–Bail stands cancelled.                                                            [Paras 17 and 18]

                                                                                                                        

2014 STPL(LE-Crim) 54140 AP[2014(2) Crimes 354] ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

BYAGAR MALLESH  VERSUS THE STATE OF A.P.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498,366,342,506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2)(a)(ii) – Statutory Bail – Imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years – Punishment under section 366 IPC is “which may extend to 10 years and also fine” but it is not “Imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years”. Punishment for section 366 IPC can very from minimum to maximum of 10 years and it cannot be said that the imprisonment prescribed is not less than 10 years. Matter falls under section 167(2)(a)(ii) of CrPC – Held: Statutory bail in offence under section 366 IPC  is to be granted after 60 days of custody and not after 90 days.

BUDH SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

2000 STPL(LE) 28324 SC  [(2000) 9 SCC 266 = JT 2000 (8) SC 511 = 2001 AIR(SCW) 2270 = 2001 CRI. L. J. 2942]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 167 and 482 – Police remand refused – First 15 days expired – High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC directing the magistrate to grant police remand. Held that order was in violation of Section 167 and cannot be sustained. Case law discussed.

Shakil Khan Vs State 2014 (2) BCR(Cri) 91, 2014 AllMR(Cri) 929

The offence under section 306 is punishable with a maximum term of10 years. The punishment for lesser term can certainly be awarded for the said offence. Therefore, in cases relating to the investigation into an offence punishable under section 306 of IPC subclause (ii) of clause (a) would be applicable; and consequently, the maximum period during which the detention of offender can be authorized, pending investigation, would be 60 days (and not 90 days).

Aslam Babalal Desai VS State

1993 (3) BCR 166, 1993 (1) BLJR 75, 1992 (3) Crimes 597, 1993 CrLR 811, 1992 (3) CurCriR 292, 1993 EastCriC 130, 1993 (2) EFR 11, 1992 (4) SCC 272, 1993 SCCriR 139, 1992 (Supp1) SCR 545, 1993 BBCJ(SC) 2, 1993 (2) CCJ 33601, 1993 AIR(SC) 1, 1992 AIR(SCW) 2621, 1992 (3) AllCriR 697, 1992 (2) AndhWR 67, 1993 (2) CriLC 440, 1992 CrLJ 3712, 1993 MadLJ(Cri) 184, 1992 (6) JT 21, 1993 (1) ALT(Cri)(SC) 265, 1993 (1) RCR(Cri) 600, 1992 (2) Scale 523, 1992 SCC(Cri) 870, 1992 (3) SCJ 377

Bail–Default of prosecution–Bail granted as the prosecution failed to file charge-sheet within stipulated time–Subsequent filing of charge-sheet does not entitle to Court to cancel the bail on the ground of filing of charge-sheet.

Tags

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close
Close