STATE THROUGH CBI versus MOHD. ASHRAFT BHAT AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 07-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE THROUGH CBI 
v. 
MOHD. ASHRAFf BHAT AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 7, 1995 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Tmorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987: 
S.167120(4)-Right to bail on failure of prosecution to complete inves-
tigation within period prescribed-Held, does not survive on cha/Ian being 
filed-Period of limitation-To be computed from date of a"est in connection 
with relevant case. 
The respondent was arrested under the Terrorists and Disrnptive Ac· 
D tivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 in connection with F.I.R. No. 14 of 1991 and 
F.I.R. No. 56 of 1991. The date of arrest in respect of the latter case was 
17.4.1992 and the prosecution submitted the challan in respect thereof on 
23.12.1992. The Designated Court by its order dated 9.5.1994 released the 
respondent on bail in terms of s.167, Cr.P.C. accepting the case of the 
E respondent that the prosecution failed to submit the cballan within the 
period prescribed. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The Designated Court erred in releasing the respondent on 
bail. The right of the respondent to bail indefeasible on the expiry of the 
F period of one year is enforceable only prior to filing of the challan and it does 
not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. Once the chal· 
Ian has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and 
decided on merits. [301-G-H,302-A] 
G 
Sanjay Dutt v.State, reported in [1994] 5 SCC 410, followed. 
2. The Designated Court also erred in computing the period of one 
year. In the instant F.I.R. No. 56 of 1991 the respondent was arrested on 
17.4.1992, but his date of arrest for the purpose of computing the period of 
limitation was taken as the date of the original arrest in the earlier F.I.R. No. 
H 14 of1991. The limitation has to be computed from the later date. [302-D] 
300 
STATEIBROUGHCBI v.ASHRAFfBHAT 
301 
. Central Bureau of lllvestigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, Nev< DeU1i A 
v. Anupam !. Kulkarni, [1994] 5 SCC 141, relied on. 
3. In the circumstances, the bail granted to the respondent is can-
celled. He shall be arrested, but subject to the condition that he may of his 
own appear before the Designated Court and surrender himself and pray B 
for bail on merits. [303-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1708 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.94 of the Pr~siding Officer, C 
Designated Court Jammu & Kashmir in F.No. 336 of 1993. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Bhasme, V. Pahwa 
and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. 
S.K. Bhattacharya for Respondent No. 1. R.C. Pathak for Respon-
D 
dent No. 2. 
The following. Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This is an appeal against the order dated 9.5.94 of the Presiding 
Officer, Designated Court established under the Terrorists & Disruptive 
Activities Act, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, whereby. the first 
respondent was released on bail in terms of Section 167 Cr.P.C. in as much 
E 
as the prosecution failed to submit police report ( challan) within the period F 
prescribed. It transpires that the prosecution submitted the police report 
on 23.12.92, when the period of one year assigned for the purpose stood 
expired. It is noteworthy that when claim for bail by the respondent was 
being examined, the police report indeed stood filed. Yet the Designated 
Court granted bail to the respondent on the mere fact that the police report G 
had been filed belatedly. It apparently considered the right of the respon-
dent to bail indefeasible on the expiry of the period of one year. 
Patently, the Designated Court was in error. A Five Member Bench 
of this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State, reported in [1994] 5 SCC 410 has ruled 
at page 442 as follows : 
H 
A 
B 
c 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
'The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation 
is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challan and it does not 
survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already 
not ·availed of. Once the challan has been filed, the question of 
grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference 
to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of 
bail to an accused after the filing of the challan. The custody of 
the accused after the challan has been filed is not governed by 
section 167 but d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.