TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether, for the purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the period of 90 days was to be computed by excluding the date of arrest, so that the charge-sheet filed on the 90th day would defeat a claim for default bail. (ii) Whether, on merits, the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground that the identification and recovery material did not justify continued custody.
Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the period of 90 days was to be computed by excluding the date of arrest, so that the charge-sheet filed on the 90th day would defeat a claim for default bail.
Analysis: The period was held to be computed in accordance with the settled rule of exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last. Reference was made to the principle recognised in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On that basis, the date of arrest was excluded while calculating the 90-day period under the proviso to Section 167(2). Since the charge-sheet was filed on the 90th day after excluding the date of arrest, the statutory right to default bail did not arise.
Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (ii): Whether, on merits, the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground that the identification and recovery material did not justify continued custody.
Analysis: The material on record disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in the dacoities. The applicants had been identified and recoveries were shown from them. At the bail stage, the adequacy of identification or the evidentiary value of recoveries was not to be finally examined, as those matters were for trial.
Conclusion: Bail was not warranted on merits.
Final Conclusion: The bail applications failed both on the statutory default-bail plea and on merits, and were therefore rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: For computing the 90-day period under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the date of arrest is excluded; if the charge-sheet is filed within the computed period, default bail does not arise.
TaxTMI 
