Wednesday, July 28, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

It is the court’s obligation to inform petitioner of his bail rights under S 167(2) CrPC: Delhi High Court

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Delhi High Court has observed in a bail application that “it was the court’s obligation to inform the petitioner of his right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.”

A single-judge bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru has noted:

“It would be for the concerned Trial Court to examine the report and ascertain whether any cognizance can be taken on the basis of the chargesheet.”

The bail application has been filed by Chander Shekhar under Section 21(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity.

Shekhar has been arrested by the police officials on patrolling duty upon suspicion, whereas, after apprehension and search a polythene containing certain red colored powder was found and was believed to be smack.

Shekhar submitted that the first bail application has been filed on the ground that he has been falsely implicated and his signatures were forcefully obtained on blank sheets of papers. He also claims that no notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served on him. However, the same has been dismissed.

The third bail application sought bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC claiming that he was entitled to default bail. Whereas, the same has been rejected on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has lost his indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.

On Court’s inquiry Additional Public Prosecutor informed that the substance recovered from the petitioner was not tested on the spot or thereafter. However, it was assumed that the substance recovered is smack.

The bench allowed the petition observing that the petitioner was entitled to default bail as he had moved an application for the same before the charge sheet has been filed. “The petitioner was arrested on 18.04.2020 and the period of sixty days as stipulated under Section 167(2) Cr. PC elapsed on 17.06.2020. And, the charge sheet had not been filed till that date.”

The bench further noted that

“Although the petitioner had moved his bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.PC, this Court is of the view that the same ought to have been considered by the concerned court. This is considering that it was the court’s obligation to inform the petitioner of his right to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC.”

The bench has allowed the bail application directing the petitioner to be released on bail on his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs 5,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Also Read: Clarify stand on calling J&K ‘disputed area’, magistrate tells high court bar association; elections stayed

Read the order here;

VIB09112020BA28682020_230615

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Delhi HC dismisses PIL on online games addiction among children, asks Centre to decide on representation

The Delhi High Court bench while hearing the petition filed highlighting the recent incidents of children committing suicides, or going into depression refused to entertain a PIL seeking formulation of policy protecting children from online game addiction.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.