REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NOORMOHD Appellant

V/S

STATE OF DELHI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BAMARDO V. FORD,GOSSAGE'A CASE [REFERRED TO]
EX PARTE CORKE [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SING. V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWINDER SINGH V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NATABAR PARIDA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF ORISSA,AIR [REFERRED TO]
SHRAWAN RANAJI UNDIRWADE AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HIDAYAT BEGAIN V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. TUKARAM SHIVA PATIL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
UMEDSINH VAKMATJI JADEJA AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM CHAND V. THE STATE OF H.P. [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA CHANDRA GHOSE V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RANANJAYA SINGH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
K M VISWANATHA PILLAI VS. K M SHANMUGAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SAPTAWNA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
KANU SANYAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DARJEELING [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GUDIKANTT NARASIMHULU VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SHAFI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
HEERAMAN VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI BRAHMAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAM PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAR AN VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
G P V A SUBRHMANYAM VS. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
BALASUNDARA PAVALAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GYANU MADHU VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ATHIAPPA GOUNDER VS. S A ATHIAPPA PANDARAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M K PYLOTH [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BHANWARU KHAN [REFERRED TO]
KHINVDAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PREM RAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
DHENA SUREN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail which has been referred by a single Judge for decision by a larger bench. The reason is that there is a conflict of Judicial opinion as to the meaning and effect of proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the matter is one of considerable importance. Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested by the police on 17th April 1977 as it was suspected that he had taken part in committing a murder. Despite the lapse of 60 days, during which the petitioner remained in custody, the investigation was not complete. Consequently, the report envisaged by section 173 of the Code was not sent to the Magistrate by the police within that time. On 17th June, the sixty-first days, the petitioner applied to the Additional Session Judge for bail. This application was rejected on the very next day, 18th June. The reason given by the Additional Sessions Judge was that he had been informed 'that the investigation has been completed and (the) challan will be filed within a day or two'. In these circumstances', he said 'the bail application cannot be accepted', and, accordingly, it was dismissed. Two days later, on 20th June, the police report was filed. Thereafter, the petitioner has been remanded to custody from time to time to stand trial.

(3.) On 12th August 1977 the present application for bail was lodged in this court. It has been moved under section 439 of the Code. Although it contains other submissions, the only point on which we were addressed is that, after being in detention for 60 days, the petitioner was, and still is, entitled to bail because of proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the Code. The question is whether that contention is well-founded.

Click here to view full judgment.

NOOR MOHD Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address