1986 (5) TMI 265 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of the 90-day period u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The legality of the bail granted by the Magistrate.
3. The interpretation of "detention" under the proviso to Section 167(2).

Summary:

1. Computation of the 90-day period u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court critically examined the scope and effect of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants contended that the 90-day period should be computed from the date of arrest, emphasizing the liberty of the citizen. The State argued that the period should be computed from the date of remand by the Magistrate. The Court held that the total period of 90 days or 60 days must be calculated from the date of remand and not from the date of arrest. The Court reasoned that the initial period of custody by the police is not pursuant to an order of remand by a Magistrate.

2. The legality of the bail granted by the Magistrate:
The appellants were granted bail by the Magistrate on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed on the 91st day from the date of arrest. The High Court, however, held that the period of 90 days should be computed from the date of remand, thus canceling the bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Magistrate's order of bail was not valid under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code, and re-arrest could be ordered.

3. The interpretation of "detention" under the proviso to Section 167(2):
The Court discussed the historical background and legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 167(2). It emphasized that the provision aims to balance the liberty of the citizen and the interests of the State. The Court clarified that the right to bail under the proviso is subject to the accused furnishing bail. The period of detention authorized by a Magistrate begins from the date of remand, and the maximum period of police custody is 15 days. Further remands for investigation must be for judicial custody.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The appellants were directed to surrender or be re-arrested, with the option to seek bail under Section 437(1) of the Code. The Court's interpretation ensures a harmonious reading of the provisions, safeguarding both individual liberty and public interest.