, 2001 (42 ) ACC 952 , 2001 ALLMR(Cri)713 (SC), 2001 (2 )BLJ(SC )650 , 2001 (2 )BLJR1330 , II (2001 )CCR100 (SC ), 2001 (2 )CGLJ302 , 2001 CriLJ1832 , 2001 (2 )Crimes150 (SC ), 2001 GLH(2 )493 , (2001 )2 GLR1148 , JT2001 (4 )SC 262 , 2001 (II )OLR290 , 2001 (2 )PLJR182 , 2001 (2 )RCR(Criminal)452 , 2001 (3 )SCALE29 , (2001 )5 SCC453 , [2001 ]2 SCR878 , 2001 (2 )UC58 , ,MANU/SC/0222/2001
G.B. Pattanaik#U.C. Banerjee#B.N. Agrawal#3418SC4920Judgment/OrderACR#AIR#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALLMR(Cri)#BLJ#BLJR#CCR#CGLJ#CriLJ#Crimes#GLH#Gujarat Law Reporter#JT#MANU#OLR#PLJR#RCR (Criminal)#SCALE#SCC#SCR#UCG.B. Pattanaik,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2013-12-2016593,16247,16263,11472,11473,11462,16451,16452,16920,16580,16599,16640,17456,17457,17459,16755,86767,16939,16918,17163 -->
MANU/SC/0222/2001
True Court CopyTM EnglishUC BLJR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (crl.) 394 of 2001
Decided On: 29.03.2001
Appellants: Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Pattanaik, U.C. Banerjee and B.N. Agrawal JUDGMENT
G.B. Pattanaik, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In this Appeal by grant of Special Leave the question that arises for consideration is when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder. In the case in hand, the accused after surrendering himself in the Court was remanded to judicial custody by order of the Magistrate on 17.6.2000. A case has been instituted against him under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short "MPID Act"). The period of 60 days for filing of charge sheet was completed on 16.8.2000. On the next day i.e. 17.8.2000, an application for being released on bail was filed before the Magistrate alleging that non-filing of challan within 60 days entitles the accused to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate rejected the prayer on the same day on a conclusion that the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has no application to cases pertaining to MPID Act. The accused, therefore, preferred a Criminal Application before the Bombay High court. A learned Single Judge after hearing the contentions raised by the accused and by the State referred the matter to the Division Bench on 23rd August, 2000 and the matter was listed before a Division Bench on 29th August, 2000. On that date the Division Bench adjourned the matter for argument to 31st August, 2000 and in the meanwhile a charge sheet was filed before the Trial Judge on 30th August, 2000. The Division........