TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a charge-sheet accepted by the Magistrate without the Forensic Science Laboratory report could be treated as a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2); (ii) Whether, after cognizance is taken on such report and process is issued, further detention of the accused is governed by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not Section 167(2).
Issue (i): Whether a charge-sheet accepted by the Magistrate without the Forensic Science Laboratory report could be treated as a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2).
Analysis: The report submitted by the police was accepted by the Magistrate as a charge-sheet, cognizance was taken, and summons were issued. The Court held that, in an application for bail, it was not permissible to go behind the Magistrate's action of taking cognizance and treating the report as one under Section 173(2). On that basis, the contention that no valid report had been filed within the prescribed period was not entertained in these proceedings.
Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to default bail on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether, after cognizance is taken on such report and process is issued, further detention of the accused is governed by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and not Section 167(2).
Analysis: Once the report under Section 173(2) was accepted and cognizance was taken, the Court held that subsequent judicial custody was controlled by Section 309. Section 167(2) operates only up to the stage of remand before cognizance and cannot be invoked after the Magistrate has taken cognizance and the case has proceeded further.
Conclusion: Section 167(2) had no application after cognizance, and the claim for bail on that basis failed.
Final Conclusion: The bail application failed both on the procedural default-bail contention and on merits, and the petitioner was directed to remain in custody.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a Magistrate accepts a police report as a charge-sheet and takes cognizance, the accused cannot, in a bail application, challenge that report as invalid to claim default bail, and after cognizance further custody is governed by Section 309 rather than Section 167(2).
TaxTMI 
