Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency on 12 May, 2021
In
addition to the judgment in Fisal PJ, he also drew my attention to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha v. National
Investigation Agency4.
Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992
15. Mr. Krishnan drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni5, which held that the period of police
custody under Section 167(2) of CrPC would be the first 15 days of total
remand. He also pointed out that the correctness of this view has been
5
(1992) 3 SCC 141.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Abdul Samad & Another on 16 March, 1962
84. Therefore, while ordinarily, the Magistrate is the original court
which would exercise power to remand under Section 167, the exercise
of power by the superior courts which would result in custody being
ordered ordinarily (police or judicial custody) by the superior courts
which includes the High Court, would indeed be the custody for the
purpose of calculating the period within which the charge-sheet must
be filed, failing which the accused acquires the statutory right to
default bail. We have also noticed the observations of this Court in
State of U.P. v. Abdul Samad [State of U.P. v. Abdul Samad, 1962 SCC
OnLine SC 40 : AIR 1962 SC 1506]. In such circumstances broken
periods of custody can be counted whether custody is suffered by the
order of the Magistrate or superior courts, if investigation remains
incomplete after the custody, whether continuous or broken periods
pieced together reaches the requisite period; default bail becomes the
right of the detained person.