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

1997 Supreme(Cal) 26

DEBI PRASAD SARKAR, GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE
SURESH MAHATO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Kazi M.Rahaman, Serajul Islam, SUDIPTA MOITRA

GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN moving this application for bail the learned Advocate for the petitioner inter alia argues that although in this case charge-sheet has been submitted within 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner-accused under various Sections including Section 302, I. P. C. , yet the said charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. inasmuch as neither any copy of any forensic report has been applied to the petitioner accused nor any forensic report has been forwarded under Sub-Section (5) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. along with the charge-sheet although certain articles were sent for forensic examination and report during investigation. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that unless the charge-sheet is accompanied by all the documents REFERRED TO in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. the charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet and if the charge-sheet cannot be treated as valid charge-sheet it will have to be held that the investigation has not been completed and as such the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C




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