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 default bail on the ground that the statutory period for completion of investigation had expired and the charge-sheet filed was incomplete.
Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody beyond the prescribed period, and the material on record showed that the charge-sheet itself recorded that investigation was still proposed to be continued under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the mere assertion that further investigation was continuing against other persons, or that the investigating agency had substantially progressed, could not defeat the accused's right to bail once the statutory period under Section 167 had expired without completion of investigation. The pendency of further investigation under Section 173(8) did not cure the default or postpone the accrual of the right to bail.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to default bail, and the bail application was allowed.
Final Conclusion: The accused acquired the statutory right to release on bail after expiry of the prescribed investigation period, and continuation of further investigation could not override that right.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the statutory period for investigation expires without completion, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail, which is not defeated by a statement that further investigation will continue under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.