Default Bail III

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

A date of remand is to be included for considering a claim for default bail, when computing 60/90 day period as contemplated in proviso (a) of Section 167(2), CrPC.

Some favoured exclusion while a contrary view is taken in other cases. State of M.P. v. Rustam, 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 ignored binding precedent of Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 3 SCC 141 and is a per incuriam decision.

The General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be made applicable to Section 167(2). Ignoring date of remand would, in our opinion, militate against legislative intent of providing protection from slothful investigation. In construction of a penal statute, in case of ambiguity, whether actual or assumed, ambiguity must be resolved in favour of liberty at stake.

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 701-702 of 2020].

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.