Skip to content


Muniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl. Petition No. 141 of 1985
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR3180
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 - Sections 167(2); General Clauses Act - Sections 10
AppellantMuniswamy
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant AdvocateC.H. Hanumantharaya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateB. Basappa, S.P.P.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....the decision reported in ilr 1985 kar 3098, in comput-ing the period of 90 days the date of arrest should be included and that the prosecution cannot take advantage of section 10 of the general clauses act as there was no time limit within which the police had to place their final report.;as 90th day expires in this case, from the date of arrest of the accused on 26-1-1985 the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail by the court on that day. - labour & services suspension: [p.d. dinakaran c.j. & a.n. venugopala gowda, j] karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957, rule15 (1)(2c) & 10(1)(aa)-disciplinary proceedings - power to suspend - service of employee lent by government to other authority service of delinquent employee suspended..........within 90 days. according to mr. hanumantharaya, the period of 90 days has to be counted from the date of arrest and the prosecution cannot have the benefit of the holidays and as the charge sheet has not been filed within 90 days as required by proviso (a) (i) of sub-section (2) of section 167 cr. p.c. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. in support of his contention mr. hanumantharaya relied upon the decision of this court in balappa karnal and others -v.- state of karnataka, : ilr1985kar3098 . in the said case mylearned brother venkatesh, j, was pleased to hold that in computing the period of 90 days the date of arrest should be included and that the prosecution cannot take advantage of section 10 of the general clauses act as there was no time limit within which the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Dcsai, J.

1. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 198/84 of H.A.L. Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner on 24-10-1984 at about 8.30 p.m. caused the death of the deceased Gullaiah by stabbing him with a knife. His application for bail was rejected by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore. Hence, he has filed this application in this Court under Sections 439 and 167 Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.

3. Heard Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 29-10-1984 at about 10.30 p.m. The police have filed the charge sheet against him in the Court below on 28-1-1985 that is, beyond the period of 90 days from the date of his arrest. According to the prosecution, 26-1-1985 and 27-1-1985 were holidays and there-fore, the charge-sheet must deemed to have been filed within 90 days. According to Mr. Hanumantharaya, the period of 90 days has to be counted from the date of arrest and the prosecution cannot have the benefit of the holidays and as the charge sheet has not been filed within 90 days as required by proviso (a) (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his contention Mr. Hanumantharaya relied upon the decision of this Court in Balappa Karnal and Others -v.- State of Karnataka, : ILR1985KAR3098 . In the said case myLearned Brother Venkatesh, J, was pleased to hold that in computing the period of 90 days the date of arrest should be included and that the prosecution cannot take advantage of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act as there was no time limit within which the police had to place their final report. With respect, I agree with the said view. As 90th day expires in this case, from the date of the arrest of the accused on 26-1-1985 the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail by the Court below on that day.

5. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs, 5,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the City Sessions Judge, Bangalore and on his undertaking to abide by the following condition :

(i) That he shall not leave Bangalore without the express permission of the Session Judge, Bangalore.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //