Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Siba Bisoi And Others vs State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party on 18 November, 2021 cites

M Ravindran vs The Intelligence Officer Directorate ... on 26 October, 2020

7. Certified copies of the relevant orders have been annexed to the CRLMC petition vide Annexure-4 series. A perusal of the same reveals that the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody for the first time on 06.09.2020. As such, the period of 180 days was due to expire on 03.03.2021. Admittedly, the petition for extension of time to complete the investigation was heard and allowed one day before completion of the 180-day period. No illegality is Page 5 of 8 involved thereby and the petitioners also do not have any serious grievance against such order. But what is forcefully challenged by the petitioners is that on the date of expiry of the extended period, i.e., 01.05.2021, neither they were produced before the court nor they were informed of their right of being released on bail since admittedly charge sheet had not yet been filed. Charge sheet was ultimately filed on 03.05.2021, i.e., two days after and still the accused persons were remanded which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Ravindran vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 867 as well as by this Court in Lambodar Bag (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 237 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam on 16 August, 2017

8. It has been time and again emphasized that the right of the accused persons to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. is indefeasible and akin to a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, despite absence of specific provision under Section 36A it is necessary for the court to inform the accused of such entitlement immediately after completion of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be. These fundamental aspects have been given a complete go bye by Page 6 of 8 the learned Special Judge. Thus, as on 01.05.2021 or even 02.05.2021, the accused persons had acquired an indefeasible right of being released on bail and therefore, their detention beyond such date(s) become illegal and hence, deserves to be interfered with. It is immaterial that the accused persons had not filed any application for bail on that day. Since, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67, as reiterated in the case of M. Ravindran (supra) and followed by this Court in Lombadar Bag (supra), in the absence of information to the accused by the Court of their entitlement to default bail, they cannot be deprived of their indefeasible right only because they had not applied for bail. Moreover, they have specifically pleaded in the present application at paragraph-20 that for the aforementioned illegality committed by the Court, they are entitled to be released on bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 393 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Lambodar Bag vs State Of Orissa ........ Opp. Party on 16 May, 2018

5. It is submitted by Mr. Panda that the day of first remand being 06.09.2020, 180 days was due to expire on 03.03.2021. The I.O. filed a petition seeking extension of time to complete investigation on 27.02.2021 i.e., within the 180-day period. It is further submitted that the said petition was considered and allowed on 02.03.2021, which is one day before the expiry of 180-day period. But charge sheet was not filed within the extended period of 60 days, i.e., on or before 01.05.2021, but two days thereafter. On such basis, Sri Panda has argued that the indefeasible right of the accused-petitioners to be released on bail for the default of the investigating agency as accrued on 01.05.2021 was completely ignored by the Court below and the charge sheet was accepted but without releasing the petitioners on default bail. To fortify his contention, Sri Panda has cited a decision of Page 4 of 8 this Court rendered in the case of Lambodar Bag vs. State of Orissa, (2018) 71 OCR 31.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 20 - S K Sahoo - Full Document
1