9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r bail was filed and the Public Prosecutor had moved for extension prior to that, is distinguishable from the reported case, yet Hon'ble the Supreme Court having categorically held that the order of extension could not be passed retrospectively, the respondents could not derive any benefit from the impugned order. The learned Special Judge could not have granted extension from back date and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 under Sections 21 of the Act pertaining to Police Station Sarhali District Tarn Taran. The facts of the case need not to be gone into as bail is being sought on the ground that charge-sheet was not filed by the police within the stipulated period. It may be mentioned here that the period of 180 days was expiring on 29.03.2014 and the prosecution applied for extension of time to complete the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD and others 2013(1) W.L.C. (SC) Criminal 442 that the order for extension of time for investigation could not be passed with retrospective effect. In the said case, application was moved by the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C which was kept pending by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and before the next date, the Public Prosecutor filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused. In the present case, the application was filed earlier and also before expiry of the statutory period of 180 days. He argued that the present case was therefore distinguishable and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the Court below could not have passed the order of extending time of custody and investigation with retrospective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court having categorically held that the order of extension could not be passed retrospectively, the respondents could not derive any benefit from the impugned order. The learned Special Judge could not have granted extension from back date and it was for the Public Prosecutor to have moved the application well within time. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to bail under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
