NDLI: Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – s. 20(2) – Proviso added by the 2015 Act to sub-section (2) of s. 167, CrPC – Interpretation of.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Default bail – The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – s. 20(2) – Order of extension passed in exercise of power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of s. 20 of the 2015 Act – Legality of – Appellants are accused in FIR registered for offences under various provisions of the 2015 Act – Reports were submitted by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of time up to 180 days to complete the investigation – Prayer for extending the time up to 180 days was allowed by the Special Court – Appellants filed separate applications u/s. 482, CrPC, rejected by High Court – On appeal, held: While extending the remand to judicial custody, the presence of the accused has to be procured either physically or virtually – This is the mandatory requirement of law – It is sine qua non for the exercise of the power to extend the judicial custody remand – When the Special Court exercises the power of granting extension under the proviso to sub-section (2) of s. 20 of the 2015 Act, it will necessarily lead to the extension of the judicial custody beyond the period of 90 days up to 180 days – Therefore, even in terms of s. 167(2)(b), it is mandatory to procure the presence of the accused before the Special Court when the prayer of the prosecution for the extension of time to complete investigation is considered – Thus, the failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity – It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused u/Art. 21 – Thus, prejudice is inherent and need not be established by the accused – In the present case, orders were passed by the Special Court on the reports of the Public Prosecutor on the very day on which reports were submitted – There was no reason for such hurry – Admittedly, information about the filing of such reports by the Public Prosecutor was not provided to the accused – Orders passed by the Special Court extending the period of investigation are illegal on account of the failure of the respondents to produce the accused before the Special Court either physically or virtually when the prayer for grant of extension made by the Public Prosecutor was considered – Thus, the appellants are entitled to default bail – Impugned orders passed by the Special Court granting extension to complete investigation and impugned judgment of the High Court are set aside – Appellants enlarged on default bail u/s. 167(2) on the conditions as directed – Constitution of India – Art. 21. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – s.20(2) – Requirement of the report under proviso added by sub-section (2) of s. 20 of the 2015 Act to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of s. 167 of CrPC – Held: Is two-fold – Firstly, in the report of the Public Prosecutor, the progress of the investigation should be set out and secondly, the report must disclose specific reasons for continuing the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days – Therefore, the extension of time is not an empty formality – Public Prosecutor has to apply his mind before he submits a report/an application for extension – Prosecution has to make out a case in terms of both the aforesaid requirements and the Court must apply its mind to the contents of the report before accepting the prayer for grant of extension. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Default bail – Held: The indefeasible right to default bail u/sub-section (2) of s. 167 is an integral part of the fundamental right to personal liberty u/Article 21 – Constitution of India – Article 21. Words & Phrases – “or under any other Act” – Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – s. 20(5) – Held: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah reported as [2008] 12 SCR 1083 held that the expression “or under any other Act” appearing in sub-sec. (5) of s. 21 of the MCOCA was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, it must be struck down – Hence, the same expression used in sub-section (5) of s. 20 of the 2015 Act infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay.S. Oka
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1013
Petitioner	Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya
Respondent	State Of Gujarat
SCR	[2022] 13 S.C.R. 367
Judgement Date	2022-09-23
Case Number	1656

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Please Log-in to view this content

Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Gujarat

Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat

Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ohs.

Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (d) By Lrs.

Babubhai Udesinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr.

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Gujarat

Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Ishvarbhai Fuljibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat

Hirabhai Jhaverbhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ohs.

Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (d) By Lrs.

Babubhai Udesinh Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao

Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr.

Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat