SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 143

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Matchumari China Venkatareddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two bail petitions have been filed under S. 439, Cr. P. C. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 81/92 of Darsi Police Station of Prakasam District. They are accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Sections 149 and 435, IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

( 2 ) IN the two cases referred to above, which arise out of the same crime, the bail is sought for on the ground that the proviso to S. 167 (2) Cr. P. C. is violated. The case of the petitioners is that from the date of their remand, more than 90 days expired and as such, their detention became illegal and as they are ready to furnish sureties, the court of Magistrate was bound to release them on bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contends otherwise. He argues that the charge-sheet was submitted within the stipulated time of 90 days and as there was some deficiency, the same was returned by the Court of Magistrate after perusal of the charge-sheet and that as such, the requirement of S. 167 (2), Cr. P. C. was met perfectly and that there is no ground for enlargement of the petitioners on












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top