KANNAN Vs. STATE:

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions made on both sides were heard. THE original records sent for from the court below, have also been perused.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer did not complete the investigation within the period of 90 days in accordance with Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C and that hence the petitioner had got a right under the said provision to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), representing the respondent would state that though the right under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C is termed to be an indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail, the accused should have been availed of the right to come on bail before ever it has got extinguished by the submission of a final report and that in this case when the petition under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C was filed, the final report of the Investigating Officer was also filed and hence the alleged right of the petitioner got extinguished.

(3.) MOREOVER in Hussainara Khatoon and Others (v) Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna reported in (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 108, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that after the expiry of the mandatory period stipulated under Section 167 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate cannot go on remanding the accused without applying his mind as to the necessity to pass an order of remand and in the very said judgment it has also been observed that the state is under a legal obligation to provide legal aid to such accused to protect the right conferred upon him.