Supreme Court of India

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v State of Maharashtra

(1994) 4 SCC 60219941 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Accused under TADA sought bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed in time. A 1993 amendment had changed the period and added a provision for extension.
Issue
Whether the accused had a right to default bail and whether the 1993 amendment applied to pending investigations.
Held
On expiry of the investigation period without a charge-sheet the accused gets an indefeasible right to bail under S.20(4) TADA read with S.167 CrPC. The amendment, being procedural, applied to pending investigations. The Court explained that substantive law is presumed prospective while procedural law ordinarily applies to pending matters.
Principle
Statutes affecting substantive rights are presumed prospective; procedural amendments generally apply to pending proceedings.
Cite this

Facts

  • Accused under TADA sought bail on the ground that the investigation was not completed in time. A 1993 amendment had changed the period and added a provision for extension.

Issue

  1. Whether the accused had a right to default bail and whether the 1993 amendment applied to pending investigations.

Held

  • On expiry of the investigation period without a charge-sheet the accused gets an indefeasible right to bail under S.20(4) TADA read with S.167 CrPC. The amendment, being procedural, applied to pending investigations. The Court explained that substantive law is presumed prospective while procedural law ordinarily applies to pending matters.

Cite this

Citation

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1275754/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.