Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

compliance with Section 160 CrPC, the consequence is that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Shri. Jethmalani, submits that, all this has been clearly set out in the application and affidavit of the applicant, copy of which is annexed at page-70 of the paper-book. Shri. Jethmalani, has invited my attention to paragraphs-3, 9,10, 19 and 27 at pages-70 to 72 and 76, so also, page-78 of the paper-book and submits that the stand of the prosecution that the applicant was attending the office of the ATS pursuant to a notice is not at all tenable. It lacks in bonafides. The document purported to be a notice under Section 160 CrPC is suspicious.

compliance with the proviso to Section 160 CrPC, does not result in release on bail. The circular issued by the police authorities is nothing but an internal note on implementation of Section 160 CrPC and does not confer any statutory right on the applicant.

38. For all these reasons, Shri. Desai, submits that there is no * 30 * substance and merit in this application and it must be rejected.

62. Shri. Jethmalani, has then urged that even if the applicant was not arrested, but she was summoned for interrogation. He relied upon Section 160 of CrPC in this behalf. Section 160 of CrPC reads thus :

"S. 160. Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who from, the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:

In Nandini Sathpathy's case, in the paragraphs relied upon, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that actual accused and suspects can be interrogated and their attendance at the police station can be required under Section

160. The word "any person" would include the accused as well. While so holding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-72, quashed the prosecution. That was because, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was satisfied about violation of Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code and more particularly proviso to Section 160(1) CrPC