G.B.PATTANAIK, UMESH C.BANERJEE, B.N.AGARWAL
Uday Mohanlal Acharya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
What is the meaning of "availed of" in the context of an accused's indefeasible right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.? What are the rights of an accused regarding default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. when a charge sheet is filed after the expiry of the stipulated period? How to determine when an accused is considered to have availed of their indefeasible right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.?
Key Points: - The indefeasible right of an accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. accrues on the expiry of the period for filing the charge sheet if the investigation is not completed. (!) - This right is considered "availed of" by the accused the moment they file an application for bail and offer to furnish bail, even if the court has not yet passed the order or the bail has not been furnished. (!) (!) - If a charge sheet is filed after the accused has availed of their indefeasible right by filing a bail application, the right is not extinguished. (!) (!) - A dissenting opinion argued that "availed of" requires the actual furnishing of bail, not just the filing of an application. (!) (!) - The majority view held that if a Magistrate erroneously refuses a bail application under Section 167(2) and the accused moves a higher forum, the filing of a charge sheet while the matter is pending does not extinguish the accused's right. (!) - The appeal was allowed in accordance with the majority decision, directing the accused to be released on bail. (!) (!) - The majority concluded that the High Court was in error for refusing the accused's right to bail. (!) - The dissenting opinion concluded that the High Court had not committed an error and the appeal should be dismissed. (!) - The case involved an interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999. (!) (!) - The core issue was when an accused is deemed to have "availed of" their indefeasible right to default bail. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik, J. - (Majority opinion by Pattanaik, J., on his behalf and on behalf of U.C. Banerjee, J.)
Leave granted.
2. In this Appeal by grant of Special Leave the question that arises for consideration is when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder. In the case in hand, the accused after surrendering himself in the Court was remanded to judicial custody by order of the Magistrate on 17.6.2000. A case has been instituted against him under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short “MPID Act”). The period of 60 days for filing of charge sheet was completed on 16.8.2000. On the next day i.e. 17.8.2000, an application for being released on bail was filed before the Magistrate alleging that non-filing of challan within 60 days entitles the accused to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate rejected the prayer on the same
Union of India v. Thamisharasi & Ors.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II)
Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
State through CBI v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat & Anr.
Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab
Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi & Ors.
A.K. Gopalan v. The Government of India
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.