Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.24 seconds)Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 6 November, 2012
On reading and re-reading the
decision of the Apex Court in Vipul Sheetal case (supra), which was not brought to my
notice in the course of hearing the bail applications, the impugned bail orders passed by
me are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court therein. Conducting further
investigation cannot be tantamount to re-investigation or fresh investigation of the case. It
must not be overlooked that the charge-sheet already filed is very alive and kicking, and
mere conducting of further investigation of the case by the police on the direction of Court
or otherwise does not have the effect of setting at naught the charge-sheet already filed
against the respondents. It may be noted that the bail applications of the respondents had
been considered by me on the touchstone of sub-section (2) of Section 167, CrPC and not
on merits. Though the cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of the decision
already, which cannot normally be done in view of the embargo imposed by Section 362,
CrPC, the power of the same Court to cancel the bail which was granted contrary to law or
of the law laid down by the Apex Court cannot be negated, more so, when a superior court
can always cancel the bail illegally granted by the subordinate courts. Since charge-sheet
had already been filed against the respondents before the trial court before the expiry of 90
days, the mere undertaking of further investigation of the same FIR by the police cannot
mean that the charge-sheet already submitted U/s 173(2), CrPC stood abandoned or
rejected. Inevitably, the respondents could not be held to be entitled to statutory bail at all
when this Court passed the impugned bail orders, which is liable to be cancelled.
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
In the instant case, I had held that following the direction by the learned Sessions
Judge, Karimganj upon the police to carry out further investigation of Badarpur P.S. Case
No. 81/2011 U/s 302/120-B, IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 Arms Act corresponding to
Sessions Case No. 182/2012, which, in turn, was based upon the direction of this Court,
the charge-sheet submitted in connection therewith earlier had become infructuous and
1. Cril. Misc. Case No. 226/13 Page 8 of 9
2. Cril. Misc. Case No. 227/13
3. Cril. Misc. Case No. 228/13
that the respondents were deemed to have been detained in custody for more than 90 days
without submission of the charge-sheet by the police.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr on 13 May, 2011
He also relies on the
decisions of the Apex Court in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC
550 and Prakash Kadam and others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and another,
(2011) 6 SCC 189 to fortify his submissions. Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel for the
accused-respondents supports the bail orders and submits that there is no provision under
the law for cancelling the bail already granted except on the ground of misuse or
likelihood of the bail. According to the learned counsel, if the contention of the learned
counsel for the applicants is accepted, the order cancelling the bail will amount to
reviewing an order which is barred by Section 362, CrPC. He also submits that when
similarly situated co-accused (Abdul Basit, s/o Rashid Ali) was granted bail by this Court
in Bail Appln. No. 3478/12, there is absolutely no reason to cancel the bail of the
petitioners. He, therefore, submits that no substantial ground has been made out by the
applicants for cancellation fof the bail granted to the accused-respondents.