Bombay High Court
Prahlad
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On:
These provisions under Section 167 do not however crave out any condition, limitation or restriction in the matter of grant of bail, Section 167 which is a part of Chapter XII of the Code deals with the investigation. Section 167 (2) proviso (a) has issued, as observed by the Supreme Court a Legislative command to the Court to release the accused on bail in the eventuality of default to complete the investigation within a specific period. The Section intends to minimise the harassment to the accused in custody in the case of prolonged investigation. The Section instead of putting limitation in the matter of grant of bail, virtually confers a privilege on accused to claim release on bail in case of default as envisaged. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of Act while adopting limitation in the matter of grant of bail under the Code, even by any implication does not endeavour to embarras, proviso to Section 167 (2). These provisions since not being a limitation in in the matter of release on bail cannot be adopted through the media of sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act. Any attempt to extend the applicability of Section 167 (2) proviso, to the matter of grant of bail under Section 37 would nullify the overriding effect provided by the non-obstinate clause over the Code. The applicant, therefore, cannot claim a benefit of being released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act of 1985 by taking resort to these provisions as contained in Sections 167 of the Code since the prosecution failed to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet within a period of 60 days.
For citation : (1990) 3 Crimes 439 at pp. 442,443
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.