Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.59 seconds)Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
(2)(b) The 'indefeasible right' of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 is a right which ensures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to-the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that stage."
Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952
If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus on the ground of absence of a valid order of remand or detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is on the basis of a valid order. (See Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106; Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 and A.K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India, AIR 1966 SC 816)."
Ram Narayan Singh vs The State Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 1953
If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus on the ground of absence of a valid order of remand or detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is on the basis of a valid order. (See Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106; Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 and A.K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India, AIR 1966 SC 816)."
A. K. Gopalan vs The Government Of India on 27 October, 1965
If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus on the ground of absence of a valid order of remand or detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is on the basis of a valid order. (See Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 106; Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 and A.K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India, AIR 1966 SC 816)."
Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001
The facts in short are that the petitioners were charged under Section 363, 366 and 504 IPC and they remained in jail since 17.2.2011. The petitioners moved an application for bail claiming benefit of Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) Cr.P.C. It was stated by the petitioners that no charge sheet has been filed within a period of 60 days, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. The said application was considered by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate proceeded to reject the application assuming that the charge sheet could be filed within 90 days, as such, bail could not be granted. The petitioners filed revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge after considering the case laws cited by the petitioners proceeded to reject the revision by recording a finding to the effect that the date on which the application was moved i.e. 9.5.2011, on the same day charge sheet was filed, therefore, the petitioners cannot be given the benefit as claimed by them in the judgment rendered in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453.