TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses bail petition due to timely chargesheet filing & compliant actions. Petitioner's detention legal; no default bail entitlement recognized.</h1> <h3>SUJAL VIJAYBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1</h3> SUJAL VIJAYBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of detention due to lack of extension of remand.2. Entitlement to bail u/s 167(2) CrPC due to non-filing of chargesheet within the stipulated period.3. Interpretation of 'taking cognizance' by the court.Summary of Judgment:1. Legality of Detention:The petitioner argued that his detention was illegal as there was no order of extension of remand after being remanded to judicial custody on 16/12/2011. He was not produced before the Special Court for extension of remand.2. Entitlement to Bail u/s 167(2) CrPC:The petitioner contended that he should be granted bail u/s 167(2) CrPC as no cognizance was taken within 180 days of his custody. The chargesheet was filed on 31st May 2012, before the expiry of the 180-day period on 14th June 2012. The court held that the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. The court referred to the case of Pragya Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and other precedents, emphasizing that the right to default bail is not absolute and is lost once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated period.3. Interpretation of 'Taking Cognizance':The petitioner argued that the court did not take cognizance of the case within the stipulated period, which should entitle him to bail. The court clarified that 'taking cognizance' means becoming aware of the offence and not necessarily the offender. The court held that the Principal Judge's act of directing the registration of the Sessions Case was a sufficient compliance under the law, and thus, no right to default bail accrued to the petitioner. The court cited the case of State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, which states that cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.Conclusion:The petition for bail was dismissed as the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated period, and the court's actions were in compliance with the legal requirements. The petitioner's detention was deemed legal, and no right to default bail was established. The petition failed, and Rule nisi was discharged with no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
