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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
For the State :Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. — The petitioner is accused of having committed offences under Sections 376(2)(g)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC’). The petitioner claims ‘bail-on-default’ under the provisions of Proviso (a) (ii) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’). Therefore, some dates would be relevant. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sameypur Badli on 17.2.2005. He was arrested on the same day. On 18.2.2005, he was remanded to judicial custody and continues to be in custody. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the charge-sheet was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of the first remand i.e., 18.2.2005. Since, the charge-sheet had not been filed by 18.4.2005 (the date, when, the 60 days period came to an end) the petitioner, on 4.5.2005 filed an application before the Magistrate claiming release on bail in terms of Proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) of CrPC. While the application was pending, the charge-sheet was filed on 12.5.2005. When the said application came to be disposed of on 21.5.2005, two issues arose f

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