1983 (3) TMI 316 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Bail application based on calculation of 90-day period under Section 167(2) of Cr. P. C.
Merits of the bail application regarding delay in identification parade and seizure of cash and ornaments.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Calculation of 90-day period under Section 167(2) of Cr. P. C.
The judgment addresses the calculation of the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. The proviso to Section 167(2) mandates that if the challan is not filed within 90 days, the accused must be released on bail. The court refers to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and Section 12 of the Limitation Act to interpret the calculation of time. Various High Courts have interpreted the exclusion or inclusion of certain days in the calculation of time for different legal provisions. The judgment cites cases from Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Delhi, Punjab, and Haryana High Courts to establish the correct method of calculating the 90-day period. The court concludes that in the present case, excluding the date of arrest, the filing of the challan on the 90th day does not entitle the applicants to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2).

Issue 2: Merits of the bail application
The judgment also delves into the merits of the bail application, focusing on the delay in the identification parade and the seizure of cash and ornaments. The applicants argued that there was undue delay in the identification parade and that the seized cash and ornaments were of common use and not connected to the dacoity. However, the court notes that there is a prima facie case showing the involvement of the applicants in the dacoity, as they were identified and stolen ornaments were recovered from each of them. The court emphasizes that at the bail stage, the question of proper identification or the connection of recovered property with the offense will be examined during the trial. Ultimately, the court rejects the bail applications, stating that there are sufficient grounds to show the involvement of the applicants in the dacoity, and no new grounds have been presented to warrant reconsideration.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the bail applications based on both the calculation of the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. and the merits of the bail application concerning delay in the identification parade and the seizure of cash and ornaments. The court finds that the applicants failed to establish grounds for their release on bail, considering the evidence and circumstances presented in the case.