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 petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after filing of the charge-sheet, and whether the period during which he remained under police surveillance in hospital amounted to custody for computing the statutory period.
Analysis: The petitioner was kept under police surveillance while undergoing treatment in hospital, with restrictions on his movement, and that period was treated as custody for the purpose of Section 167(2). On that basis, the charge-sheet was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days. The statutory right to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) is an accrued right and is not defeated by the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet or by lapse of time. The Court also held that such bail is granted by legislative command and not on merits, while preserving the prosecution's liberty to seek cancellation under the relevant provisions.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the application was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: For computing the period under Section 167(2), custody may include restrictive police surveillance amounting to constructive custody, and the accused's accrued right to default bail is not extinguished by the later filing of the charge-sheet.