2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
S. B. SHUKRE, J.
Sheikh Nasir Sheikh Rahman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Criminal Writ Petition No.228 of 2017
26th April, 2017.
Petitioner Counsel: Shri C.B. BARVE
Respondent Counsel: Shri J.Y. GHURDE
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.167(2) - Statutory bail - Computation of period of 90 days u/S.167(2) - Date on which accused is produced to Court should be excluded. AIR 1986 SC 2130, 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (S.C.) Rel. on. (Para 7)
Cases Cited:
Chaganti Satyanarayana and others Vs. State of A.P., AIR 1986 SC 2130 [Para 5]
Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (S.C.)=(2015) 8 SCC 340 [Para 5]
JUDGMENT
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The issue involved in this writ petition is, whether the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody should be included or excluded in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days, the prerequisite for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.?
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it must be included in view of the clear law laid down by the two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and others vs. State of A.P., reported in AIR 1986 SC 2130 wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that such period has to be calculated "only from the date of remand and not from the of arrest" (para 23) However, according to the learned A.P.P. the law laid down in the case of Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 340 : [2015 ALL MR (Cri) 1230 (S.C.)], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the date on which the accused is sent to the judicial custody must be excluded in computing such a period.
6. On going through the judgment of Ravi Prakash Singh, one can see that the case Chaganti Satyanarayans and others has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in paragraph 12, the Apex Court has made following observations :
"In State of M.P. v. Rustam, this Court has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded and the day on which challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being so, in our opinion in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be excluded and, as such, the chargesheet was filed on the ninetieth day i.e. 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code."
7. In view of above observations, it shall be no longer open for the petitioner to contend before this Court that the date on which the accused is produced before the Court should also be included while computing the period of 90 days under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.