https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311974 The Supreme Court held that, for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, the day the Magistrate orders remand is included in computing the 60/90 day period, because custody under the statutory scheme begins on that date. It rejected the view that the remand day must be excluded and held that the General Clauses Act does not control this computation. Applying the liberty-protective interpretation required by Articles 21 and 22(2), the Court ruled that an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail once the period expires without filing of the charge-sheet or final report, and the grant of bail was upheld. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311974 The Supreme Court held that, for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, the day the Magistrate orders remand is included in computing the 60/90 day period, because custody under the statutory scheme begins on that date. It rejected the view that the remand day must be excluded and held that the General Clauses Act does not control this computation. Applying the liberty-protective interpretation required by Articles 21 and 22(2), the Court ruled that an accused acquires an indefeasible right to default bail once the period expires without filing of the charge-sheet or final report, and the grant of bail was upheld. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 27 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311974