9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1456 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - compliance with the statutory requirement of police report Under Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - In view the statutory provisions Under Section 173(2) and (5) read with Section 2(r) of Code of Criminal Procedure and with reference to the judgments on which both the learned senior Counsel placed reliance upon. It is an undisputed fact that the charge sheet was filed on 3.7.2013 that is 90th day. Section 2(r) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines the expression police report as a report forwarded by a police officer to a magistrate Under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The particulars to be furnished in the police report which are extracted as above are complied with in the instant case. Therefore, filing of the police report as required Under Section 173(2) is within 90 days in the instant case. The High Court is right in rejecting the prayer of default bail Under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon the filing of the police report, cognizance was taken by the learned ACJM on 3.7.2013 which is evident from the order passed by him which is extracted above. It is pertinent to point out that the said order remains unchallenged by the Appellant. Therefore, it is not open for him to turn around and contend that cognizance was not taken by the learned ACJM on 3.7.2013. Thus, filing of police report containing the particulars as mentioned Under Section 173(2) amounted to completion of filing of the report before the learned ACJM, cognizance is taken and registered the same. The contention of the Appellant that the police report filed in this case is not as per the legal requirement Under Section 173(2) (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure which entitled him for default bail is rightly rejected by the High Court and does not call for any interference by this Court. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Compliance with statutory requirements of police report under Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Validity of judicial orders of remand and custody. 4. Interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Right to seek default bail upon non-filing of complete documents with the charge sheet. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The appeal was filed against the High Court's rejection of Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellant argued that the period of 90 days for filing the police report had expired, making him eligible for Default Bail. The High Court was found to have excluded the day of arrest in its calculation, which the Appellant contended was erroneous. 2. Compliance with statutory requirements of police report under Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The Appellant claimed that the charge sheet filed by the CBI on 3.7.2013 did not comply with the statutory requirements of Sections 173(2) and 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the documents required to be filed along with the police report were submitted in installments and completed only on 8.7.2013, thus entitling the Appellant to bail. 3. Validity of judicial orders of remand and custody: The Appellant contended that there was no existing order of remand to custody between 5.7.2013 and 8.7.2013, making his custody during that period illegal. Furthermore, it was argued that no judicial order of remand was made on 3.7.2013, rendering the custody illegal for the days between 3.7.2013 and 8.7.2013. 4. Interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court examined whether the charge sheet filed on 3.7.2013 complied with the definition of "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was concluded that the charge sheet contained the necessary particulars required under Section 173(2), and thus, the filing of the police report was within the stipulated 90 days. 5. Right to seek default bail upon non-filing of complete documents with the charge sheet: The Supreme Court referred to the three Judge Bench judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai, which held that the word "shall" in Section 173(5) is directory, not mandatory. This allowed for the submission of additional documents with the court's permission even after the initial charge sheet filing. Consequently, the High Court was justified in refusing Default Bail as the police report was filed within the 90-day period, and the Appellant's contention was rejected. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the charge sheet filed on 3.7.2013 complied with the statutory requirements, and the Appellant was not entitled to Default Bail. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the judicial orders of remand and the interpretation of the term "police report" under Section 2(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
