2017 (4) TMI 1634 - HC - Indian Laws

Prerequisite for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. - whether the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody should be included or excluded in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days for statutory bail? - HELD THAT - On going through the judgment of RAVI PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR 2015 (2) TMI 1371 - SUPREME COURT , one can see that the case CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN VERSUS STATE OF AP. 1986 (5) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT has been considered by the Hon ble Apex Court and in paragraph 12, the Apex Court has held In STATE OF M.P. VERSUS RUSTAM AND ORS 1995 (2) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT , this Court has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being so, in our opinion in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be excluded and, as such, the chargesheet was filed on the ninetieth day i.e. 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code. Thus, it shall be no longer open for the petitioner to contend before this Court that the date on which the accused is produced before the Court should also be included while computing the period of 90 days under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days for seeking statutory bail.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this writ petition was to determine whether the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody should be included or excluded in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days, as required for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner argued that the date of remand should be included based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and others vs. State of A.P., while the Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) relied on the decision in Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, where the Apex Court held that the date of remand should be excluded from the computation of the period.

3. The Court examined the judgment in Ravi Prakash Singh and noted that the Supreme Court had previously established in State of M.P. v. Rustam that the day of remand should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period, with the day of challan filing being included. Consequently, the Court concluded that the date of remand should be excluded from the calculation under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Based on the above analysis, the Court found that the petitioner's argument to include the date of production before the Court in the computation of the 90-day period was no longer valid in light of the established legal principles. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the argument presented.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, affirming the interpretation of the law regarding the exclusion of the date on which the accused is produced before the Court in determining the period for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.