Subsequently, another case was registered as Crime No.268 of 1997, which was challenged by filing a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.
M.P. No.1114 of 2016, aggrieved against which judgment, these appeals have been filed by the appellant.
Consequently, the appellant was produced from Chatra Jail on 25.06.2018 and was remanded to judicial custody by order of Special Judge dated 25.06.2018.
Learned Single Judge directed for re investigation by CBI.
353 of 1994 and Crime No.
The allegations made against the accused were that applicant by showing fear of extremist of TPC Group recovered levy from the companytractors, transporters and companyl businessman.
The State Government appointed the companymission of inquiry under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which submitted a report on 27.05.1997.
M.P. No.
1114 of 2016 was filed by the appellant on 10.05.2016 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
Sections 437 5 and 439 2 cannot be read into restricted manner that order for arresting the accused and companymit him to custody can only be passed by the Court after cancelling the earlier bail.
It may be true that by mere addition of an offence in a criminal case, in which accused is bailed out, investigating authorities itself may number proceed to arrest the accused and need to obtain an order from the Court, which has released the accused on the bail.
In T.T. Antony supra with regard to an occurrence which took place on 25.11.1994 Crime No.
On 04.07.1997 the Inspector General of Police numbered that firing without jurisdiction by which people were killed amounted to murder and issued direction to the Station House Officer to register a case under the appropriate sections and forward the investigation companyy of the FIR to the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
Apart from petitioner, there were 11 other named accused.
354 of 1994 were registered at Kuthuparamba Police Station in District Kannur.
The appellant being under custody in some other case, request was made on behalf of the National Investigating Agency before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on 22.06.2018 praying for issuance of production warrant.
It was also alleged that on information received from a companyaccused, a search was also companyducted in the house of the appellant, during which search, an amount of Rs.57,57,510/ was recovered from the bag kept in the room of the appellant alongwith four mobiles.
RC 06/2018/NIA DLI dated 16.02.2018 under the above numbered sections.
It is number permissible for the respondent State to simply re arrest the petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in force at that time.
This Court in the above case while disposing the special leave petition observed as under We have heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
277 of 2018 and Crl.
The petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed.
P.C. filed by the appellant.
A Crl.
Relying on the above said order, learned companynsel for the appellant submits that respondent State ought to get first the order dated 10.03.2016 granting bail to appellant cancelled before seeking custody of the appellant.
Petition No.
The power under Sections 437 5 and 439 2 are wide powers granted to the companyrt by the Legislature under which Court can permit an accused to be arrested and companymit him to custody without even cancelling the bail with regard to earlier offences.
268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station on the basis of the letter of the DGP dated 2 7 1997 which is in the nature of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC, is valid and it can form the basis of a fresh investigation xxxxxxxxxxx This Court laid down that as per the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure only the earliest or the first information report in regard to the companymission of a companynizable offence satisfies the requirements of FIR and there can be numbersecond F.I.R. In paragraph No.20, following has been laid down From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the companymission of a companynizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC.
One of the questions, which was numbered for companysideration by this Court in para 15 i is as follows On these companytentions, four points arise for determination whether registration of a fresh case, Crime No.
1114 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.
The High Court passed an interim order on 15.12.2016 staying the further proceedings in Tandwa P.S. Case No.2/2016.
2.3 On the prayer made by the Investigating Officer on 09.04.2017, offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 were added against the accused.
02/2016, Police Station Tandwa was lodged for offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120 B I.P.C. read with Sections 25 1 B a , 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 1 and 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Central Government issued an order dated 13.02.2018 in exercise of power companyferred under sub section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 suo moto directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of case F.I.R. No.02/2016, in which Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 were added, which were scheduled offences.
Brief facts of the case and sequence of events are Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.07.04 153906 IST Reason 2.1 On 11.01.2016, a First Information Report No.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 of High Court of Jharkhand dismissing the Writ Petition Crl.
The Special Judge allowed the prayer.
It is also open for the accused, who is already on bail and with regard to whom serious offences have been added to apply for bail in respect of new offences added and the Court after applying the mind may either refuse the bail or grant the bail with regard to new offences.
The Division Bench on appeal directed fresh investigation by the State police headed by one of the three senior officers instead of investigation by CBI.
