Top News Headlines 8th Feb 2022: Grant Of Default Bail On Failure To Take Cognizance Before Expiry Of Statutory Period Incorrect

Grant Of Default Bail On Failure To Take Cognizance Before Expiry Of Statutory Period Incorrect: SC

• The Hon’ble SC in Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi has held that an accused cannot claim the right of statutory bail if the Court has not taken cognizance within the period of 60 or 90 days as is provided in section 167 CrPC, if the chargesheet has been filed. This period is reckoned from the date of the remand.
• The bench also held that the indefeasible right that vests in the accused to claim statutory bail under 167(2) CrPC arises only when the chargesheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period.
• In the instant case, the Directors of Adarsh Group Of Companies and LLPs were accused of offences under 447 of the Companies Act and section 120-B read with sections 417 418, 420, 406, 463, 467, 468, 471,474 of the IPC. Their application for statutory bail was rejected by the trial Court because the chargesheet was filed within 60 days. But the HC later granted the bail on the ground that the cognizance was not taken within the statutory period prescribed under section 167 CrPC.
• The accused relied on a plethora of judgements in support of his claim, some of them being Sanjay Dutt vs State (1994), Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) and M. Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021). Relying on these, the accused claimed that he had the right to seek statutory bail even when the Chargesheet has been filed, right up till the Court takes cognizance.
• The Apex Court rejected the aforesaid contention and held that after perusing the aforementioned decisions, it becomes very clear that the SC, in no way intended to create an additional requirement of cognizance being taken after which bail can be granted. In the Madar Sheikh case, the Court referred to a situation where the application was filed after the chargesheet had been filed and the cognizance had been taken by the Court.
• The Hon’ble SC noted that the instant issue was covered by the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra (2013)3 SCC where the Court had observed that the filing of the chargesheet is sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 167(2) of CrPC. The purpose of section 167 CrPC is to grant the power to the Magistrate to remand the accused to police custody during the process of investigation upto the maximum period of 60 or 90 days.
• The Court in the above case also noted that on filing of the chargesheet within the period prescribed within section 167, the accused remains to be in the custody of the magistrate till the cognizance is taken by the Court trying the offence, when this latter Court assumes the custody of the accused for the purposes of remand within section 309 CrPC.
• Thus, the Court had clarified that the two stages are very different, and they follow each other.
• Thus, the appeal was allowed and the order of the HC was set aside.

Land Dedicated For Religious Purpose Can Be Vested With The State: SC

• The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. A.P. State Wakf Board has held that Article 26 does not interfere with the right of the State to acquire property. Thus, the Apex Court set aside the action of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board which declared 1654 acres of land as wakf property.
• In the instant case, the notification was issued by the Wakf Board in the year 2006. It was challenged by the State of Andhra Pradesh and AP Infrastructure Development Corporation by filing a writ petition before the HC. The same along with several writ petitions were dismissed.
• The SC observed that the HC had erred in relegating the parties to avail a statutory remedy. The Court held that the State Government has a right, just like any other juristic entity, to protect its property by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the HC.
• The SC also observed that the publication of the notification in the official gazette serves as a public notice. The same is in no way binding on the State Government.
• One of the major contentions of the defendants was that the land dedicated for pious and religious purposes continues to be vested in the wakf, in light of the principle ‘once a wakf, always a wakf’.
• To answer this question, the Apex Court referred to its decision in Khajamian Wakf Estates vs. State of Madras (1970)3 SCC where it was questioned whether the State stood in violation of article 26(c) and 26(d) of the Constitution when it acquired lands which were vested in the religious institutions. The Court had held that these aforementioned sections in no way took away the right of the State to acquire property belonging to religious denominations.
• It was further held that the religious denominations have the right to acquire and administer properties, but that does not mean that the State loses the right to acquire them. After such acquisition, they cease to own that property and lose the right to administer them as they please.
• Thus, the appeal was allowed by the SC.