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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1035

J.N.PATEL, ROSHAN DALVI
NUAMUDDIN MOHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


ORAL JUDGMENT

J. N. PATEL, J. :- The learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the application filed by the accused seeking their release on bail on the ground that the prosecution has failed to submit charge-sheet under section 67(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code within the stipulated period i.e. within 60 days from the date of their arrest, was required to make a reference to the larger bench and this is how the matter has been assigned to us .

2. The question which is referred to the Division Bench can be culled out from para 7 of the order which reads as under:

"7. There is, therefore, a clear conflict on the issue whether provisions of section 167(2)(a)(i) is attracted or the provisions of section 167(2)(a)(ii) are attracted in respect of the decisions of two lea single Judges of this Court on the one hand and the one learned sin Judge of this Court on the other hand. Therefore, in my view, it would appropriate if the matter is referred to the Division Bench. Neither learned counsel for the applicants nor the learned APP for the State invited my attention to any other judgment of the Supreme Court on t point besides the judgment in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary (su





















































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