Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.26 seconds)Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992
6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State would contend that
even though the petitioner is in judicial custody in respect of one case, such
custody of the petitioner cannot be treated as custody in the present crime,
wherein he is not arrested by the police. The crime in which the petitioner is
undergoing judicial custody and the crime in respect of which the present
application has been filed relate to different transactions. The offences alleged
against the petitioner in the two crimes being different and distinct, the
investigation in respect of each of the offence is to be carried out individually
and independently. Thus, the petitioner cannot take the plea of deemed
custody and seek regular bail in the present crime in which he is not arrested
and remanded to judicial custody. It is further contended that an application
under Section 267 Cr.P.C. seeking production warrant to secure the presence of
the petitioner before the concerned court in connection with the present crime
is being filed and at this stage, granting bail to the petitioner treating his
judicial custody from 10.09.2023 in the other crime as deemed custody in
respect of the present crime also, would deprive the police of the right to have
custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation in the
present crime. It is further contended that owing to the nature of the offences
alleged in the present crime and the time that would be consumed in the
course of investigation of such offences, it cannot be said that the investigating
agency has not taken steps to arrest the petitioner immediately after
registration of the said crime. It is further contended that the petition under
Section 267 Cr.P.C. was filed on the very next day of the arrest of the petitioner
8
KSR,J
Crl.P.No. 6965 of 2023
in Crime No.29 of 2021 and thereafter, the present bail application has been
filed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in C.B.I.
v. Anupam J. Kulkarni9 and State of West Bengal v. Dinesh Dalmia10,
and in view of the proposition laid down therein, learned Advocate General
contended that the judgments of the single Benches of this Court relied upon
by the petitioner in relation to the plea of deemed custody do not apply to the
facts of the case on hand and the present application for regular bail is not
maintainable.
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 267 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M.Viswanathan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others on 22 December, 2015
In Viswanathan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court was dealing with a question as to whether the person accused in
several crimes, having been arrested during investigation by police in one crime
and produced therein within 24 hours and taken to judicial custody and is in jail
as pre-trial prisoner, having been not asked by him or by the police concerned
to issue P.T. warrant for taking to judicial custody in all other crimes, was
entitled to claim set-off for the period under Section 428 Cr.P.C., in other
crimes and further, whether he is in deemed custody for purposes of Sections
437 to 439 Cr.P.C. Having taken note of the fact that the Superintendent of
Police concerned has got knowledge of the other crimes registered against the
petitioner and having referred to various decisions, this Court issued direction to
the Superintendent of Police, the concerned S.H.Os. and Director General of
Police, State of A.P, to see that the petitioner is produced on P.T. warrants
immediately after receipt of the warrant in all the crimes where so far he was
not produced irrespective of he is entitled to bail or not and granted bail or not,
unless released on bail and not in judicial custody.
Govt. Of A.P vs A.V. Venugopala Rao on 14 November, 1994
"In A.V. Rao case (WP 1865/76), he was already in
detention under the Preventive Detention Act when the first
information report was lodged on December 18, 1969 in connection
with the sessions cases. Some of the co-accused in these cases
13
(1980) 2 SCC 559
14
(1977) 3 SCC 298
12
KSR,J
Crl.P.No. 6965 of 2023
were arrested and produced before the Magistrate for remand on
December 19, 1969, but Rao was produced before the Magistrate
sometime in April 1970 after he was released from preventive
detention. It was argued that he also could have been produced
before the Magistrate on December 19, 1969. On behalf of the
respondent, State of Andhra Pradesh, it was contended that as Rao
was already in detention under the Preventive Detention Act, it was
not possible to produce him before the Magistrate for remand until
the period of preventive detention was over. We do not find any
justification in law for the position taken up by the State. Rao being
already in custody, the authorities could have easily produced him
before the Magistrate when the first information report was lodged.