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>SC Denies Bail: Initial Charge-Sheet Valid Despite New CBI Probe; Trial Delays by Co-accused Not Grounds for Bail.</h1> <h3>Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.</h3> Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr. - 2013 AIR 73, 2012 (9) SCR 987, 2013 (1) SCC 197, 2012 (11) JT 88, 2012 (11) SCALE 14 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Validity of the initial charge-sheet after the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation by the CBI.3. Delay in trial and its impact on the bail application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Petitioner argued that he was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the CBI failed to file a charge-sheet within 90 days after registering a fresh F.I.R. This argument was based on the premise that the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation implicitly quashed the initial charge-sheet filed by the State police. However, the Court found this argument flawed. The Petitioner was arrested under the first F.I.R. (No. 115 of 2006), and a charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. Therefore, the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) was not available to the Petitioner. The Court clarified that the fresh investigation by the CBI did not nullify the initial charge-sheet, and thus, the Petitioner's argument for default bail was rejected.2. Validity of the Initial Charge-sheet after the Supreme Court's Direction for a Fresh Investigation by the CBI:The Petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's direction for a fresh investigation by the CBI implicitly quashed the initial charge-sheet filed by the State police. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the direction for a fresh investigation did not mean that the initial charge-sheet was quashed. The CBI's fresh investigation was considered a continuation of the initial investigation. The Court emphasized that the lodging of a fresh F.I.R. by the CBI was for the purpose of enabling the CBI to take over the investigation from the State police, and not to nullify the initial charge-sheet. Therefore, the initial charge-sheet remained valid, and the Petitioner's argument was dismissed.3. Delay in Trial and Its Impact on the Bail Application:The Petitioner argued that the delay in trial warranted his release on bail. The Court noted that the delay in the trial was not caused by the prosecuting authorities but by a co-accused. Therefore, the Petitioner could not take advantage of this delay to seek bail. The Court found no merit in the argument that the delay in trial should result in the Petitioner's release on bail. Consequently, the Petitioner's application for bail on the ground of delay in trial was also rejected.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the Petitioner regarding entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the validity of the initial charge-sheet, and the delay in trial. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had rejected the Petitioner's applications for bail.
TaxTMI 