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: Whether the accused were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on account of completion of the prescribed custody period and non-filing of the complaint.
Analysis: The accused had remained in judicial custody for more than sixty days. The offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years, the investigation had not been completed, and the complaint had not been filed. On these facts, the accrued right to be released on bail under the default bail provision became enforceable. The legal position recognised that non-completion of investigation within the prescribed period gives rise to an indefeasible right to bail if the accused is prepared to furnish bail.
Conclusion: The accused were entitled to statutory bail and release on bail was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed by granting default bail, subject to conditions for appearance, non-tampering, surrender of passports, and restrictions on movement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the investigation is not completed and the complaint is not filed within the period prescribed for an offence punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to be released on bail under the default bail provision if ready to furnish bail.
TaxTMI 
