Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. KARNIK, J
AMIT MADHUKAR BHOGALE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for default bail under cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. interpretation of section 167(2) of cr.p.c. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. importance of timely charge-sheet filing (Para 7 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. arguments regarding the applicability of mcoca (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. continuity of investigation under mcoca (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 22) |
| 6. conditions for invoking section 167(2) cr.p.c. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. final ruling and applications outcome (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. These are the applications claiming entitlement to default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short).
2. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, I may at the very outset seek guidance from the decision in Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra ,(1992) 4 SCC 272 wherein the object and scope of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively stated. Paragraph 36 thereunder reads thus:-
“36. In Natabar Parida and Ors. v. State of Orissa [1975] Crl. L.J. 1212 a two judge Bench, at the earliest considered, the scope of the proviso and held thus:
“…..[T]he command of the Legislature in proviso (a) is that the accused person has got to be released
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
