Supreme Court: Day Of Remand Should Be Included For Considering Default Bail Claim

In Ravindran(supra) and Bikramjit (supra), which followed the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt(supra) it was rightly held that if the Accused persons avail their indefeasible right to default bail before the chargesheet/final report is filed, then such right would not stand frustrated or extinguished by any such subsequent filing. We therefore declare that the stipulated 60/90 day remand period Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be computed from the date when a Magistrate authorizes remand. If the first day of remand is excluded, the remand period, as we notice will extend beyond the permitted 60/90 days' period resulting in unauthorized detention beyond the period envisaged Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases where the chargesheet/final report is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, the Accused in our considered opinion would be entitled to default bail. In other words, the very moment the stipulated 60/90 day remand period expires, an indefeasible right to default bail accrues to the Accused.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 of 2020

Decided On: 27.03.2023

Enforcement Directorate, Government of India Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0329/2023,

Author: Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Print Page

Leading Judgment on procedure to be followed by lower court after case is remanded to it

Binding Nature of Remand Order :
83. It is fairly stated that power of jurisdiction
of the Court lower in hierarchy after remand, depends on
specifications of the remand order. Whether the order of
remand lays down any limits of enquiry to be made by the
Court lower in hierarchy that Court has no jurisdiction
to entertain any question which falls outside those
limits. In other words, where the Court passes
restricted order of remand it is not open to any of the
parties or any Court to enlarge the scope of the remand
order, that too, by a side window. If such course is
permitted, it would be a destructive of all judicial
discipline and will strike at the root of the efficacy
and binding nature of an order of a superior Court on the
parties to a dispute and the necessity of a sub-ordinate
Court to faithfully implement an order of the superior
Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9467 OF 2005

 Popcorn Entertainment Corporation, V/s. The City Industrial Development  Corporation,

CORAM : V.C.DAGA and
 MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 1st September 2009.
Citation:2009(6) ALLMR133

Print Page

When trial Court has jurisdiction to go into all the issues after remand of case?

 The above noted grievance of the petitioner, as it appears, is on a misconception and understanding the scope of the remand order. When the suit has been remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision, the trial Court has jurisdiction to go into all the issues and at that stage he has also jurisdiction to go into the valuation of the suit and the matter relating to sufficiency or insufficiency of the Court-fee paid. Therefore, the act of the learned Civil Judge is found neither to be illegal nor unjust or improper. Hence, on the basis of such misconception and misunderstanding of the petitioner, his grievance is devoid of merit to be considered.

Orissa High Court

Purandar Pradhan vs Gati Pradhan And 3 Ors. on 11 December, 2003

Equivalent citations: 97 (2004) CLT 65, 2004 I OLR 56,AIR 2004 NOC411 orissa

Bench: P Tripathy

Print Page