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 a person arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act is entitled to release on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the prescribed period of detention.
Analysis: The operative question was whether the scheme of Section 167(2) of the Code applies in its entirety to a person arrested under the Customs Act. The Court held that the power of remand under Section 167 and the right to be released on bail after expiry of the prescribed period are co-extensive and that Section 4(2) of the Code makes the Code applicable to offences under special laws unless the special law contains an express or implied exclusion. No provision in the Customs Act was found to exclude the proviso to Section 167(2), and the earlier view taking the contrary position was treated as no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court ruling relied upon.
Conclusion: Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies in its entirety to a person arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, and such person is entitled to be released on bail on expiry of the prescribed period if bail is furnished.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express or implied exclusion in a special statute, the full operation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including its bail proviso, applies to persons arrested under that special statute.