9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Definition and Interpretation of 'Custody' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Effect of Filing Charge Sheet on Right to Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the police filed the charge sheet more than 90 days after his arrest. The court examined whether the period of the petitioner's stay in the hospital under police surveillance could be considered as 'custody' for the purpose of calculating the 90-day period. The court concluded that the period from 30-9-1989 to 12-11-1989, during which the petitioner was under police surveillance in the hospital, must be considered as a period of custody. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed after 137 days, exceeding the 90-day limit prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Definition and Interpretation of 'Custody' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court referred to various judgments to interpret the term 'custody.' It cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashak Hussain Allah Detha Alias Siddique And Anr. V. Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay And Anr., which defined 'arrest' as a restraint on a person's liberty by lawful authority. The court also referred to Mihir Adhikary V. The State from the Calcutta High Court, which held that 'custody' includes being under police surveillance or restriction on movements. The court concluded that the petitioner's stay in the hospital under police surveillance constituted 'custody' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Effect of Filing Charge Sheet on Right to Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court discussed whether the right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is affected by the subsequent filing of a charge sheet. The learned Government Pleader argued that once a charge sheet is filed, the right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is lost. However, the court referred to several judgments, including Raghubir Singh And Ors. v. State of Bihar and Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel And Anr. v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi, which held that the right to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not defeated by the filing of a charge sheet or by the lapse of time. The court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. even though he applied for bail after the filing of the charge sheet, as the right accrued to him cannot be defeated by the prosecution's delay in filing the charge sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days. Conclusion: The petition for bail was allowed. The court directed the release of the petitioner on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or records and shall not leave the municipal limits of Mysore City without prior permission. Order: The learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, is directed to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or records in any manner. 2. The petitioner shall not leave the municipal limits of Mysore City without the prior permission of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore.
|
