SADHWI PRAGYNA SINGH THAKUR versus STATE. OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 23-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 617 
SADHWI PRAGYNA SINGH THAKUR 
v. 
STATE. OF· MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
BAIL: 
A 
B 
Bomb blast - Arrest of appellant - Bail application on the c 
ground that the arrest of appellant violated the mandate of 
Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution and also on the 
ground that no charge sheet was filed within 90 days· as 
contemplated ul s.167(2), Cr.P.C. - Special court and High 
Court rejected the bail application - On appeal, held: The case 0 
of appellant that she was arrested on October 10, 2008 and 
charge sheet was filed on January 20, 2009, which was beyond 
90th day from date of first remand order was not established 
and was rightly rejected by lower courts - Appellant was 
arrested on October 23, 2008 and was produced before the 
E 
Magistrate the next day on which date the appellant was 
remanded to Police custody till November 3, 2008 - Both the 
courts below concurrently so held which is well founded and 
is not liable to be .interfered with -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - s.167(2) - Constitution of India, 1950· -
F 
Article 22(2) - MCOC Act. 
Grant of bail - Consideration for - Held: Considerations 
for grant of bail at the stage of investigation and after the 
charge sheet is filed are different - ·Once a person is arrested 
and is in judicial custody, the prayer for bail will have to be G 
considered on merits - Prayer for bail cannot be automatically 
granted on establishing that there was procedural breach 
irrespective of the merits of matter. 
617 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.167(2) - Held: The right uls.167(2) to be released on 
bail on default if charge sheet is not filed within 90 days from 
the date of first remand is not an absolute or indefeasible right 
8 - The said right would be lost if charge sheet is filed and would 
not survive after the filing of the charge sheet - After the filing 
of the charge sheet, if the accused is to be released on bail, 
it can be only on merits. 
Relevant date of counting 90 days for filing charge sheet 
C - Held: Is the date of first order of the remand and not the date 
of arrest. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Article 22(2) - Held: 
Right u/Article 22(2) is available only against illegal detention 
o by police - It is not available against custody in jail of a 
person pursuant to a judicial order - Article 22(2) does not 
operate against the judicial order. 
A bomb blast took place on September 29, 2008 in 
Malegaon city killing six persons and injuring more than 
E hundred persons. The initial investigations revealed that 
the bomb was planted on a scooter. The investigation of 
the case was transferred to Anti Terrorists Squad (ATS). 
The investigation conducted by police official 'S' revealed 
that the scooter belonged to the appellant who was 
F originally resident of Surat and had renounced material 
world and become Sadhwi in a religious ceremony and 
was settled in Jabalµ,ur. The police official 'S' called up 
the appellant to enqilik about the scooter. The appellant 
told him that she had sold the scooter long back. 'S' was 
G not satisfied with the explanation and asked her to come 
down to Surat. The appellant came to Surat. 'S' repeatedly 
asked the appellant as to how that vehicle reached 
Malegaon and how it was used in the bomb blasts to 
which the appellant could not give satisfactory answers. 
H 'S' disbelieved her and asked her to accompany her to 
SADHWI PRAGYNA SINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 
619 
MAHARASHTRA 
Mumbai. 'S' suggested to her to take her father along with 
A 
her but she declined the said offer on the ground of ill 
health of her father. She expressed her desire to be 
accompanied by her disciple. 'S' granted the same. The 
appellant with her disciple 'BB' reached Mumbai in a 
vehicle belonging to 'S'. The case of the appellant was 
8 
that she was taken to ATS office on 11th October, 2008 
and interrogated. On 12th October 2008, the ATS team 
became more aggressive and asked 'BB' to beat the 
appellant and when 'BB' refused, he was beaten up and 
so he reluctantly complied with the order by beating the 
C 
appellant. On· 13th October 2008, she was beaten up 
whole day and subjected to vulgar abuses. On 15th 
October 2008, she and the disciple was taken to the Hotel 
Rajdoot. Thereafter she developed bad health and was 
admitted in hospital. 
On No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.