Whether accused is entitled to mandatory bail if police makes application for extension of time on same day?

A further perusal of the reported judgment would
show that the accused was sent to the judicial custody on 05.12.2006
and on 14th of March, 2007, an application for release of bail under
Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. was filed. It was on 15th of March, 2007, i.e.
on the next day, an application was filed for extension of time by the
Investigation Officer. In Nirala Yadav‟s case, the Court interfered as
the application for extension of time was filed after the right for
compulsive bail accrued to the petitioner. In the present case, though
the application for compulsive bail was filed prior in time, but it was
on the same day, the Investigating Officer sought extension in time and
the extension in time was granted on the same day. Therefore, the rigor
of law laid down in Nirala Yadav‟s case (supra) cannot be extended to
the facts of the present case.
8. Similar issue has been examined by this Court in
Cr.W.J.C. No.79 of 2016 (Upendra Yadav @ Munshi Yadav alias
Munshi Yadav Versus The State of Bihar) decided on 02nd March, 
2016, wherein this Court has held to the following effect:
“8. In the present case, the Magistrate has decided the application
on the same day, but after obtaining the report from G.R. Clerk. This
was no attempt to frustrate the right of the petitioner to be released on
bail, but to verify whether the petitioner has completed 90 days; and that
whether the charge-sheet has been filed or not. Since the charge-sheet
has been filed on the same day on which date the application for
“compulsive bail” was filed, the judgment in Nirala Yadav case (supra)
will not be applicable to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid
case, there was a request by the investigating agency for extension of
time for filing of the charge-sheet In the present case, no time sought for
filing of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was filed on the same day
though after the application for bail was filed.”
9. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the
order passed by the learned Trial Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.550 of 2016

Suresh Kora, V  The State of Bihar,

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Date: 20-09-2016
Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)85 Pat

Print Page

Whether bail granted U/S 167 of CRPC can be cancelled U/S 437(5) of CRPC?

     The Apex Court in Bashir v. State of Haryana [AIR
1978 SC 55] held that the bail granted under Section 167(2) of
the Code has the same incidents           as the bail granted under
Chapter 33.
     Section 437 comes under Chapter 33 of the Code.

Therefore, once the bail is granted under the proviso to Section

167 (2) of the Code, it has the same incidents as the bail granted

under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the

Code.       Consequently, the bail granted under Section 167 (2) of

the Code can be cancelled invoking the provisions under Section

437 (5) of the Code.


  
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

        MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

       11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/

              Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1270 of 2015 

      MAHESH K alias BATTAMPARA MAHESH, 
Vs

           THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            KASARAGOD POLICE STATION
           
     Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI) JOURNAL165

Print Page

When Mandatory bail as per S167 of CRPC can be refused to accused?

 In State of M.P. v. Rustam and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 221, 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 charge sheet was filed on ninetieth day, i.e., 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code.

13. For the reasons, as discussed above, in our opinion, the High Court has not erred in law in dismissing the petition Under Section 482 of the Code, and upholding the refusal of bail to Appellant prayed by him Under Section 167(2) of the Code.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMILAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.325 OF 2015

Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh V State of Bihar
Dated;February 20, 2015.
Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Print Page