Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the accused's right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arose when the prescribed period expired and his application for bail was already pending, and whether a later prosecution application for extension of custody could defeat that right.
Analysis: Section 167(2) of the Code, as modified by Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, permits detention beyond the initial period only within the statutory framework. Once the prescribed period expired and the accused had moved for statutory bail, the right to be released on bail had accrued. The subsequent application by the prosecution for extension of custody, and the order granting extension with retrospective effect, could not extinguish an already accrued statutory right. The pending bail application had to be considered on its own footing before any later extension could take effect against the accused.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to statutory bail, and the later extension of custody did not defeat that entitlement.
Final Conclusion: The orders refusing to recognise the accrued bail right were set aside and release on bail was directed on conditions imposed by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused applies for default bail after expiry of the statutory detention period and before filing of the charge-sheet, the right to statutory bail becomes enforceable and cannot be nullified by a subsequent or retrospective extension of custody.