<?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>1980 (2) TMI 283 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299723</link>
    <description>Article 21 requires pre-trial custody to follow fair procedure, and Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits detention during investigation. Where the accused remains in custody beyond the statutory period without filing of the charge-sheet or any lawful justification for further remand, continued detention becomes illegal and the accused is entitled to bail on furnishing the required bond. Repeated mechanical remands without monitoring completion of investigation were inconsistent with both the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the statutory scheme governing custody. The petition was accordingly allowed and release was directed forthwith on personal bonds, with liberty to the State to proceed lawfully.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2021 15:41:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 283 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299723</link>
      <description>Article 21 requires pre-trial custody to follow fair procedure, and Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits detention during investigation. Where the accused remains in custody beyond the statutory period without filing of the charge-sheet or any lawful justification for further remand, continued detention becomes illegal and the accused is entitled to bail on furnishing the required bond. Repeated mechanical remands without monitoring completion of investigation were inconsistent with both the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the statutory scheme governing custody. The petition was accordingly allowed and release was directed forthwith on personal bonds, with liberty to the State to proceed lawfully.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>