LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MRS. BHARATI CHANDMAL VARMA @AYESHA KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MRS. BHARAT! CHANDMAL VARMA @AYESHA KHAN DECEMBER 4, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-478A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420: Initiation of investigation for offences under JPC-Further investigation under the Act after approval-Default of investigating agency in completing the investigation within 90 days from the date of first remand-Plea that due to default accused entitled for release on bail-Held, accused entitle to bail since the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(21 to remain unextendable- lnvestigation would relate to the date of initial arrest and not to the date when approval was accorded-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 167(2)- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999-Sections 21(2) & 23. Respondent was arrested on 1.4.2001 for offences under Sections 478A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 IPC and produced before Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on 2.4.2001. During investi- gation it was discovered that she had also committed organised crime under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and the Inves- tigating Agency after getting approval under Section 23 of the Act on 21.4.2001 conducted investigation under the Act. Thereafter charge sheet was laid on 12.7.2001. Since charge sheet was not laid within 90 days, the respondent applied for her release on bail. Metropolitan Magistrate dis- missed the application but Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, State contended that the respondent could not be released on bail because charge sheet was laid within the period of 90 days since as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the 90 days period would commence from the date when the approval was accorded under Section 23 of the Act i.e. 21.4.2001. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The new period of 90 days would commence from the date when approval was accorded under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Con- 422 .. .. STATE v. BHARAT! CHANDMAL VARMA [THOMAS, J.] 423 trot of Organised Crime Act, 1999 for initiating investigation for any A offence under the said Act. In the present case, accused would be ·entitled to bail, on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent. [428-H; 429-A; BJ Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharshtra, [2001] 5 SCC 453, B referred to. 2. For the application of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. there is no necessity to consider· when the investigation conld legally have com- menced. That proviso is intended only for keeping an arrested person under detention for the purpose of investigation and the legislature has provided a maximum period for such detention. On the expiry of the said period the further custody becomes unauthorised and hence it is mandated that the arrested person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It .may be a different position if the same accused was found to have involved in some other offence disconnected from the of- fence for which he was arrested. In such an eventuality the officer investi- gating such second offence can exercise the power of arresting him in connection with the second case. But if the investigation into the offence for which he was arrested initially had revealed other ramifications associ- ated therewith, any further investigation would continue to relate to the same arrest and hence the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. would remain unextendable. [428-E; F; G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7. 2001 of the Bombay High Court in Cr!. B.A. No. 2253 of 2001. H.W. Dhabe, S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant. R.K. Maheshwari, M.K. Singh, Rishi Maheshwari and Pavan Kumar for c D E F the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted. A huge quantity of counterfeit notes of Rs.500 digit has been intercepted by the authorities and a case was registered by the Thane Police, Maharashtra. H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A A number of persons were arrested in connection with the said racket. We are now.concerned only with the arrest of a lady by name Ayesha Khan (also called Smt. Bharati Chandmal Varma) the respondent in this case. After the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.