Sheikh Nasir Sheikh Rahman (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2031 Bom

        J-cwp228.17.odt                                                                                                  1/3 


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.228 OF 2017


        Sheikh Nasir Sheikh Rahman,
        Aged about 56 years,
        Occupation : Labour,
        R/o. Chapalal Babulal Lodha,
        Near to Anand Buddha Vihar,
        Bhandewadi, Pardi, Nagpur.                                                  :      PETITIONER

                           ...VERSUS...

        State of Maharashtra,
        Through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station Kalamna,
        Nagpur.                                                                      :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri C.B. Barve, Advocate for the Petitioner
        Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 26 APRIL, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. The issue involved in this writ petition is, whether the

J-cwp228.17.odt 2/3

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

pre-requisite 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, 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 :

J-cwp228.17.odt 3/3

"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 charge-sheet 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.

8. The petition stands dismissed.

9. Rule stands discharged.

JUDGE

okMksns