Back
2001(8) Supreme 577
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
K.T. Thomas and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ Ayesha Khan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3313 of 2001)
Decided on 4-12-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.W. Dhabe, Sr. Advocate, S.V. Deshpande, Advocate.
For the Respondent : R.K. Maheshwari, M.K. Singh, Rishi Maheshwari and Pavan Kumar, Advocates.
Held : We are, therefore, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that a new period of 90 days would commence from the date when approval was accorded under Section 23 of the MCOC Act for initiating investigation for any offence under the said Act. In the present case, accused would be entitled to bail, not on the merits of the case, but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail in the manner indicated by this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra [2001(5) SCC 453], the relevant portion of which has been extracted above. As the respondent has been taken back to jail when the impugned order was suspended we direct the jail authorities to release her on the strength of the bail bond which she had executed pursuant to the order of the High Court. Such bail bond would thus revive and could be enforced as and when necessary. The appeal is thus dismissed. (Paras 12, 13 & 14)
JUDGMENT
Tomas, J.-Leave granted.
2. A huge quantity of counterfeit notes of Rs. 500/- digit has been intercepted by the authorities and a case was registered by the Thane Police, Maharashtra. A number of persons were arrested in connection with the said racket. We are now concerned only with the arrest of a lady by name Ayesha Khan (also called Smt. Bharati Chandmal Varma) the respondent in this case. After the arrest she was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded her to custody. As a charge sheet was not laid within 90 days thereof she applied for being released on bail as per the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). Though the Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed her prayer a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay allowed her to be released on bail solely on the aforesaid ground. The said order of the High Court is now being challenged by the State of Maharashtra.
3. The main contention of the State is that the period of 90 days envisaged in Section 167(2) of the Code should be reckoned from the date when the police started investigation into the offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (its acronym is MCOC).
4. For considering the aforesaid contention more details of the facts are necessary. Respondent was arrested on 1.4.2001 for the offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.4.2001 and he remanded the respondent to police custody first and later to judicial custody. During the investigation police discovered that organised crimes under MCOC Act had also been committed and the respondent was one of the links connected with foreign collaborators in pumping such counterfeit currency notes into India. The investigating agency sought sanction of the authorities under the MCOC Act for conducting investigation under the said Act. Such sanction was granted on 21.4.2001 and thenceforth investigation was conducted into the offences under the MCOC Act also. Finally the charge-sheet was laid on 12.7.2001.
5. Respondent moved for bail principally on the ground that charge sheet was not laid within 90 days. If the period of 90 days is to be reckoned from 2.4.2001 there is no doubt that respondent is entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 167 of the Code enjoins that the arrested person shall be produced before a magistrate if his detention is required for a period beyond 24 hours and any further custody of that person can be made only if the magistrate authorises to do so. Sub-section (2) empowers the magistrate to authorise the arrested person to be detained in custody for a term not exceeding 15 days and a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial is empowered to authorise detention of the accused person even beyond the period of 15 days, if the magistrate is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for doing so. Nonetheless, such magistrate cannot authorise detention for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. As the proviso to Section 167(2) is the hub of the plea made by the respondent we find it necessary to extract it here. It reads thus :
"Provided that-
(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relat
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
