Abdul Wahid vs State of Maharashtra 1991

Advertisements

In Bombay high court of India.

FACTS

• Abdul Wahid, the petitioner, was arrested on August 8, 1989, in connection with a murder that occurred on April 25, 1991. When a bail application was lodged on the 92nd day after the arrest, a charge sheet was also filed with the session court at the same time.
• According to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973, the Session Courts denied the applicant’s request for bail. This offended the petitioner, who then addressed the court under Section 439 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 167. The court, however, denied the bail and ruled that, following the filing of the charge-sheet, only Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not Section 167(2) of this Code, may be used to request for relief.
• Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench was asked to settle this case when the Session Court received contrasting views.

Issues

• Does the applicant have an unassailable right to be granted bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a right that cannot be taken away or eliminated once a charge sheet has been filed?

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

• The counsel for the appellant used the following cases to support the following claims:
• The court determined that the applicant’s entitlement to be set free from an order-on-default under Section 167(2) proviso (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is impregnable in the case of Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau.
• The accused should be given bail since the merits of the case cannot be considered until the necessary time period has passed if the investigating physique fails to file a charge sheet before then, as the case may be.
• Additionally, the Shrawan v. State of Maharashtra ruling that permitted the detention of accused individuals for longer than 60 days cannot be regarded as an appropriate legal precedent because it was based on the decision in Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput v. State of Gujarat, which the Gujarat High Court later dismissed in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat.
• The counsel for the appellant cited the case Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, where it was noted that when an undertrial prisoner is produced before a magistrate following detention of 90 or 60 days, the magistrate must first consider the option of release on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 before making any orders for additional remand.

ARUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENNT

The government, on the other hand, was said to have failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the defence, which claimed Abdul Wahid was innocent. They claimed that the forensic evidence was inconclusive and that the eyewitness testimony was questionable. As in the arguments were.

•  Also in , lack of direct evidence According to the defence, there is no direct evidence connecting Abdul Wahid to the murder of Chandrakant Gorakh. They asserted that the prosecution’s case was supported by weak eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.
• The prosecution’s forensic evidence was criticized by the defence as being inconclusive and failing to prove Abdul Wahid’s involvement in the crime. They maintained that the prosecution had bolstered its case using incorrect and insufficient forensic evidence.
• Weak witness testimony, the prosecution questioned the reliability of the witnesses who named Abdul Wahid as one of the offenders. They contended that Abdul Wahid was not accurately identified by the witness and that their testimony was contradictory and inaccurate.
• Alibi, the defence offered a defence for Abdul Wahid, stating that he was not there when the crime was committed. They claimed the prosecution had not proven this excuse to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

• According to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused has some rights, although they are not unassailable and can be surrendered. It may only be viewed as absolute when the charge sheet is not filed within the required statutory time of 90 or 60 days, as applicable.
• In addition, the fact that Section 167 and Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 provide their conception to the ability to hold someone does not automatically render their future detention illegal.
• It is not sufficient for the accused to just be willing to post bail; there is also an obligation to do so. Additionally, these rights to increased bail arise is the investigating authority`s responsibility to file the charge-sheet within the period of time specified.
• If an application is not made before the completion of the investigation and charge-sheet, the defendant has the right to submit bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, not Section 167(2).
• Given that the bail action was already refused on the merits by the lower court, there is no reason to revisit the merits. As a result, the application is denied. If an application is not made before the completion of the investigation and charge-sheet, the defendant has the right to submit bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, not Section 167(2).
• Given that the bail action was already refused on the merits by the lower court, there is no reason to revisit the merits. As a result, the application is denied.

JUDGEMENT

The application was rejected on merits. The Appellants’ argument was denied by the Honourable Division Bench. The Court noted that the application for bail under provision 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected on the merits and that the applicant’s entitlement to apply for release under this provision can be utilized only prior to the filing of the chargesheet.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion of the case Abdul Wahid v. State of Maharashtra case, which established the requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, is an important precedent in Indian law. The case additionally highlights the significance of a fair trial and the requirement that a strong case be made by the prosecution before convicting a defendant.

This Article is Written by Darrin of St. JOSEPH`S COLLEGE of LAW

Admin