Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001
Therefore, the instant case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001 Cri LJ 1832) (SC) (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay on 9 September, 1994
6. The expression 'if not already availed of used by this Court in Sanjay Dutt's case (supra) must be understood to mean when the accused files an application and is prepared to offer bail on being directed. In other words, on expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a) of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 if the accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish the bail, on being directed, then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefensible right even though the Court has not considered the said application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail, and the accused has not furnished the same.
Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1