<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (9) TMI 304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295117</link>
    <description>Section 167(2) CrPC confers a mandatory right to bail only when investigation-linked detention expires without lawful transition to the cognizance stage; detention after cognizance is governed by Section 309(2), and in sessions cases the committing Magistrate may also remand under Section 209. Filing of the police report does not itself complete the investigation, because it continues until the Magistrate examines the report and takes cognizance under Section 190. On the facts, cognizance was taken within the prescribed period in both matters, and the later remand orders were under Section 309(2), so the accused were not entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 15:25:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 304 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295117</link>
      <description>Section 167(2) CrPC confers a mandatory right to bail only when investigation-linked detention expires without lawful transition to the cognizance stage; detention after cognizance is governed by Section 309(2), and in sessions cases the committing Magistrate may also remand under Section 209. Filing of the police report does not itself complete the investigation, because it continues until the Magistrate examines the report and takes cognizance under Section 190. On the facts, cognizance was taken within the prescribed period in both matters, and the later remand orders were under Section 309(2), so the accused were not entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>