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 an accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because cognizance of the complaint has not been taken within 60 or 90 days, even though the charge-sheet or complaint was filed within the prescribed period.
Analysis: The governing principle is that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) arises only when the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet or complaint is not filed within the statutory period. Filing of the charge-sheet within time is sufficient compliance with the provision. The stage of cognizance is distinct from the stage governed by Section 167(2), and the absence of cognizance within the remand period does not by itself revive or extend the right to statutory bail. Earlier decisions referring to cognizance did so in their factual context and did not add a further requirement that cognizance must also be taken within the statutory period.
Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to statutory bail on the ground that cognizance had not been taken before expiry of the statutory period, since the complaint had already been filed within time. The High Court's grant of bail was therefore incorrect.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the indefeasible right to default bail arises only from failure to file the charge-sheet or complaint within the prescribed period; timely filing defeats the claim, regardless of whether cognizance has been taken.