TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been filed within ninety days.
Analysis: The relevant period was computed by excluding the day on which the accused was remanded to judicial custody and including the day on which the charge-sheet was filed. On that computation, the charge-sheet was filed on the ninetieth day. The statutory right to release on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) arises only on expiry of the prescribed period without filing of the charge-sheet, and that condition was not satisfied. The orders of the courts below were therefore consistent with the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to default bail, and the refusal of bail was and legally valid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
