TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile granting anticipatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that the accused persons shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. Apart from that no other requirement is necessary for grant of statutory bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the case on hand, admittedly, the charge sheet has not been filed by the respondent police. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. When it being so, the right to be released under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an indefeasible right and such a right cannot be extinguished by imposition of onerous conditions. The condition imposed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5 crores to the credit of Crime No. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67(2) Cr.P.C. The learned CCB CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner by an order dated 04.09.2018. However, while ordering bail to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, imposed certain conditions as follows:- i) That the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5 crores to the credit of Crime No. 453 of 2017. ii) Upon compliance of the first condition cited above, the petitioner shall furnish two sureties for like sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of this Court and one among the surety shall be a blood relative of the accused. iii) The accused shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 6 p.m., until further order. The learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: 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, impriso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that there is an application for bail from the person in custody and he must be in a position to offer adequate sureties. The bail cannot be denied to him on another ground less on the ground that on merits the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. The provision 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure has been introduced in the code with a view to avoid unnecessary detention of persons or the accused in prison under judicial custody. Legislature in its wisdom has thought that the prosecution must be compelled to come out with a final report or charge sheet with expiry of 60 days or 90 days depending upon the gravity of the offence and intended period on punishment and in case the prosecution takes more time than that the legislatu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n bail by having recourse to 167(2) and the charge sheet is subsequently laid after expiry of the prescribed period the prosecution can ask for cancellation of bail on merits and this cancellation also cannot be automatically given to the prosecution if a petition for that is filed after filing the charge sheet. The Court is not expected to oblige the prosecution by keeping an application filed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure Pending which has been filed after expiry of the period and giving opportunity to the prosecution to file charge sheet in the meantime and thereafter disposing the application holding that charge sheet has been already filed even though after expiry of the period. Further he relied upon the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submission regarding the non-filing of the charge sheet within the time stipulated and without giving any finding regarding such submission, proceeded mainly on the basis of the merits of the case. 11. The submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) makes its crystal clear that the investigation agency has filed the charge sheet only on 19.09.2006. Earlier submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the draft charge sheet was filed on 10.07.2006 and the same was returned for corrections, would not amount to filing of a charge sheet as it is rightly held by this Court in the decision cited supra and filing a defective charge sheet and returning the same to rectify the defect amounts to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
