<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1574 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310389</link>
    <description>Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains available after filing of the charge sheet, and an accused arrested during such further investigation may be dealt with under Section 167(2). The Court distinguished this from custody under Section 309(2), which applies to an accused already before the Court after cognizance or during inquiry or trial, and held that the phrase &quot;accused if in custody&quot; in Section 309(2) does not cover a person arrested later in further investigation. Police remand could therefore be sought under Section 167(2), and refusal of remand on the basis of Section 309 custody was held erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1574 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310389</link>
      <description>Further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains available after filing of the charge sheet, and an accused arrested during such further investigation may be dealt with under Section 167(2). The Court distinguished this from custody under Section 309(2), which applies to an accused already before the Court after cognizance or during inquiry or trial, and held that the phrase &quot;accused if in custody&quot; in Section 309(2) does not cover a person arrested later in further investigation. Police remand could therefore be sought under Section 167(2), and refusal of remand on the basis of Section 309 custody was held erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>