Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Section 36 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001
In Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra
(2001) 5 SCC 453, a Three Judge Bench of this Court
considered the meaning of the expression "if already
not availed of" used by this court in the decision
rendered in case of Sanjay Dutt and held in para 48
and held that if an application for bail is filed before
the charge sheet is filed, the accused could be said to
have availed of his right under Section 167(2) even
though the Court has not considered the said
application and granted him bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. This is quite evident if one refers para 13 of
the reported decision as well as conclusion of the
Court at page 747.
Sunjay Datt vs State (Ii) on 9 September, 1994
"21. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The right
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to be released on bail on
default if charge sheet is not filed within 90 days from
the date of first remand is not an absolute or indefeasible
right. The said right would be lost if charge sheet is filed
and would not survive after the filing of the charge sheet.
In other words, even if an application for bail is filed on
the ground that charge sheet was not filed within 90
Davinder Kumar
2014.03.28 10:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-7927-2014 6
days, but before the consideration of the same and before
being released on bail, if charge sheet is filed, the said
right to be released on bail would be lost. After the filing
of the charge sheet, if the accused is to be released on
bail, it can be only on merits. This is quite evident from
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sanjay Dutt
vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 [Paras 48 and 53(2)(b)]. The
reasoning is to be found in paras 33 to 49. This principle
has been reiterated in the following decisions of this
Court :
Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujrat on 8 January, 1996
(3) SCC 221, para 4, (2) Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal
vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 718 para 4. It may
be mentioned that this judgment was delivered by a
Three Judge Bench of this Court.
Dinesh Dalmia vs C.B.I on 18 September, 2007
(3) Dinesh Dalmia
vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 para 39, and (4) Mustaq
Ahmed Mohammed Isak and others vs. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 480 para 12.
Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2009
(3) Dinesh Dalmia
vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 para 39, and (4) Mustaq
Ahmed Mohammed Isak and others vs. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 7 SCC 480 para 12.
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 September, 2011
In the face of observations made by the Apex Court in Sadhwi
Pragyna Singh Thakur's case (supra), I find myself unable to be persuaded
with the submissions by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
entitled to statutory bail even if the charge sheet had been filed by the
prosecution subsequent to his filing the application for grant of bail. It is
pertinent to mention that counsel for the petitioner has not addressed this
Court at all and did not claim bail on merits.