Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail
Case: Amir Hassan Mir Vs UT of J&K
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Case No.: Crl R. No.19/2021
Court Observation: “By imposition of such conditions, the physical custody of the accused does not vest with the Court as his movement is not in any way restricted. It cannot be stated that he was in physical custody of the Court so as to claim the computation of such period in reckoning the period of 180 days of detention to acquire the statutory right under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act”
“Broken periods of custody have to be counted while computing the total period of custody undergone by an accused for the purpose of considering his default bail plea, which in other words means that the period during which an accused has not been in custody or has been enlarged on bail cannot be computed while calculating the period of custody for the purposes of considering the default bail plea”.
Previous Posts
Keywords
Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail, In Custody, Period For Default Bail, Reckoning Period, Interim Bail U/S 439(1)
