|
|
|
|
|
|
MUSTAQ QURESHI V/S STATE OF M.P. M.CR.C NO- 2776/99 DT 16-7-99 The grant of regular bail on merits stands on different footing than grant of regular bail in accordance with the provisions of section 167 [2] CR PC. Pendency of an application for grant of regular bail before the higher courts does not de-bar the courts below to exercise its jurisdiction as defined under section 167 [2]
1.MANOJ V/S - STATE OF MP -1999(2)JLJ 1=( supreme court) The accused was arrested under section 167 (2) formally however he was not produced before magistrate as per requirement of the section 167 and section 57 such arrest after 24 hours becomes otiose.and the accused cannot be detained in custody beyond the period of 24 hours. It is now well settled that benefit of provisions to section 167 (2) of the code is available to an accused involved in the offices under N. D. P. S.Act. It has been decided by the Supreme Court in union of India v/s Thamisharasi JT1995(4)SC that there is no provision in the NDPS act which will exclude the application of the section 167 (2).
STATE THROUGH CBI V/S DAWOOD IBRAHIM= 1997 SCC (CRI)636= Even after taking cognizance of an offence the court can authorise detention in POLICE custody of a person arrested during further investigation -- words " accused if in custody "in section 309 (2) does not refer to a person who is arrested in the course of further investigation. The remand and custody referred to in first provisio of section 309 relates to post cognizance stage and can only be judicial custody. Section 73; -- magistrate has power to issue a warrant under section 73 during investigation also. Such power can be exercised by him for appearance of the accused before the court only and not before the police in aid of investigation. On such production the court can authorise his detention in police custody only after exercise of his judicial discretion and not on the mere asking of the police.
GAURI SHANKAR V/S STATE OF M.P. 1995 J.L.J. 47 The offences punishable under provisions of N.D.P.S. ACT. are governed by provisions of the CRPC, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT V/S DEEPAK MAHAJAN 1994 S.C.C. (CRI) 785 and HITENDER THAKUR V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1994) 4 S C C 602 , the offender indicated for the offences under the special act like F. E. R. A., customs act and TADA are to be dealt with , keeping in view the provisions of section 167 of CRPC, as and when necessary.The provisions of section 167 [2] CR PC are applicable to the offence under section 8/2 N. D. P. S. Act charge sheet not filed within 90 days, the accused becomes entitled to bail , The bail granted under section 167 [2] may be canceled on convincing material, such prayer may be considered by court if there is genuine need.
SANJAY DUTT V/S STATE (1994)5 S.C.C. 410 The accused has a right to be released on bail in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, it is the right which ensures to , and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed.
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
