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

2008 Supreme(Kar) 824

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI
Vijay Kumar @ Kavla – Appellant
Versus
State by Anekal Police – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioners:Anees Alikhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Honappa, HCGP.

Judgment :-

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

The respondent registered Crime No.71/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.163/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 IPC. The jurisdictional Court issued body warrant order on 17.05.2008. It is also not in dispute that the said order is received by the jail authorities on 19.05.2008. The charge-sheet ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the body warrant order. But the same has not been done in the instant case. It is filed on the 92nd day, i.e. 19.08.2008. Meanwhile on the 91st day, the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C was filed on behalf of the petitioners. But the said application was rejected by the Magistrate by his order, dt. 23.08.2008.

3. Aggrieved by the said order and agitating his entitlement to statutory bail, this petition is presented.

4. Heard Sriyuths Anees Ali Khan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Honnappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. The question that arises for my consideration is: whe


























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