Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1863 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - as on the expiry of 90th day i.e. on 07.07.2018 no report Under Section 173 of the Code was on record with the Magistrate - Can it be said that the investigation was complete for the purposes of Section 167(2) of the Code so as to deny the benefit to the Accused in terms of said provision? HELD THAT:- The provision has a definite purpose in that; on the basis of the material relating to investigation, the Magistrate ought to be in a position to proceed with the matter. It is thus clearly indicated that the stage of investigation ought to be confined to 90 or 60 days, as the case may be, and thereafter the issue relating to the custody of the Accused ought to be dealt with by the Magistrate on the basis of the investigation. Matters and issues relating to liberty and whether the person Accused of a charge ought to be confined or not, must be decided by the Magistrate and not by the Police. The further custody of such person ought not to be guided by mere suspicion that he may have committed an offence or for that matter, to facilitate pending investigation. In the present case as on the 90th day, there were no papers or the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 of the Code for the concerned Magistrate to assess the situation whether on merits the Accused was required to be remanded to further custody. Though the charge-sheet in terms of Section 173 came to be filed on 05.07.2018, such filing not being in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 03.07.2018, the papers were returned to the Investigating Officer. Perhaps it would have been better if the Public Prosecutor had informed the High Court on 03.07.2018 itself that the period for completing the investigation was coming to a close - In the absence of any such similar provision empowering the Court to extend the period, no Court could either directly or indirectly extend such period. In any event of the matter all that the High Court had recorded in its order dated 03.07.2018 was the submission that the investigation would be completed within two months by a Gazetted Police Officer. The order does not indicate that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the period for completing the investigation was coming to an end. Mere recording of submission of the Public Prosecutor could not be taken to be an order granting extension. We thus reject the submissions in that behalf advanced by the learned Counsel for the State and the complainant. The Accused having shown their willingness to be admitted to the benefits of bail and having filed an appropriate application, an indefeasible right did accrue in their favour. The Appellants are entitled to be admitted to bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code on such conditions as the trial Court may deem appropriate - appeal allowed.
|