1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Petitioners Granted Bail as Incomplete Police Report Fails to Meet 60-Day Investigation Deadline Under CrPC.</h1> The court granted bail to the petitioners due to the incomplete police report and challan, as the investigation was not completed within the mandated ... - Issues:Grant of bail based on incomplete police report and incomplete challan.Analysis:The petitioners filed for bail based on the absence of a complete police report as required by section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners argued that failure to complete the investigation within sixty days, as mandated by section 167(2), entitled them to be released on bail. The State contended that forwarding an incomplete challan sufficed as per section 173(2) and that the petitioners could not benefit from section 167(2).The court examined the provisions of section 173(2) which necessitate the completion of the investigation before forwarding a police report to the Magistrate. The court highlighted that the incomplete challan indicated the investigation was ongoing, thus not meeting the prerequisite for forwarding a police report.The definition of 'police report' under section 2(r) of the Code was emphasized, stating that only a report forwarded after completing the investigation qualifies as a police report. The court rejected the State's argument that an incomplete challan could substitute a police report, as it would violate the statutory right to bail under section 167(2).The court discussed the importance of completing investigations within the stipulated time frame and emphasized that no circumvention of the requirement to forward a police report was permissible. The court cited cases to support the interpretation of legislative intent and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements.The court addressed the State's argument regarding section 173(8) allowing further evidence collection, clarifying that this provision could only be used after completing the investigation and filing a police report. The court highlighted that without a police report, no cognizance could be taken by the Magistrate, rendering section 173(8) inapplicable.The judgment concluded that due to the incomplete investigation and absence of a police report within sixty days, the petitioners were entitled to bail under proviso (a) of section 167(2). The court granted bail to the petitioners, requiring sureties and bond execution to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.In summary, the court granted bail to the petitioners based on the incomplete nature of the police report and challan, emphasizing the importance of completing investigations within the prescribed time frame and adhering to procedural requirements for filing a police report.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
