https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311997 The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to Magisterial custody should be excluded when calculating the 60-day or 90-day period for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. This decision aligns with the precedent set by the SC in State of M.P. v. Rustam, where the day of remand is excluded from the computation period. The petitioner's argument to include the remand date was deemed without merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition and discharge of the rule. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:33:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311997 The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to Magisterial custody should be excluded when calculating the 60-day or 90-day period for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. This decision aligns with the precedent set by the SC in State of M.P. v. Rustam, where the day of remand is excluded from the computation period. The petitioner's argument to include the remand date was deemed without merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition and discharge of the rule. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311997