Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Singh Son of Birendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Singh Son of Birendra Singh vs State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 28, 2009
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/849736

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 1303 of 2009
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Arms Act - Section 27; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 167(2); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Singh Son of Birendra Singh

Advocate Anil Kumar Singh and; Surinder Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar

Advocate Mukesh Kr. Singh, A.P.P.

Legal References

Acts
Arms Act - Section 27; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 167(2); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302
Cases Referred
Uday Mohan Lal Achariya v. State of Maharashtra

Excerpt

- mandhata singh, j.1. there is no need to mention the fact or merit of the case as the release of the petitioner is claimed under section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure. in a case for the offence under section 302 of the indian penal code and other allied sections of the indian penal code including section 27 of the arms act, petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody on 6.6.2009. after completion of 90 days rather on 92 days a petition was filed to release the petitioner under section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure and accordingly finding no chargesheet submitted in the case petitioner was released.2. accroding to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 6th june, 2009 the day on which he was allowed bail under section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure was saturday and petitioner was in jail custody, so bail bond could be furnished on 8.6.2009 on monday, the working day and that is refused on the ground that after passing of the order and before furnishing of the bail bond chargesheet against this petition was also filed. this much only is challenged in this revision by making submission that once right under section 167(2) of the code of criminal procedure is availed, that cannot be denied as being the same indefeasible right as decided by the supreme court in the case of uday mohan lal achariya v. state of maharashtra reported in 2001 cri lj 183.3. i also agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the impugned order for refusal to accept the bail bond is not allowed to be sustained. accordingly, same is set aside. the revision petition is allowed and the court concerned is directed to accept the bail bond after its proper verification.

Full Judgment

Mandhata Singh, J.

1. There is no need to mention the fact or merit of the case as the release of the petitioner is claimed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 27 of the Arms Act, petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody on 6.6.2009. After completion of 90 days rather on 92 days a petition was filed to release the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly finding no chargesheet submitted in the case petitioner was released.

2. Accroding to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 6th June, 2009 the day on which he was allowed bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Saturday and petitioner was in jail custody, so bail bond could be furnished on 8.6.2009 on Monday, the working day and that is refused on the ground that after passing of the order and before furnishing of the bail bond chargesheet against this petition was also filed. This much only is challenged in this revision by making submission that once right under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is availed, that cannot be denied as being the same indefeasible right as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Mohan Lal Achariya v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 Cri LJ 183.

3. I also agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order for refusal to accept the bail bond is not allowed to be sustained. Accordingly, same is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the court concerned is directed to accept the bail bond after its proper verification.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial