{"id":224111,"date":"2001-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001"},"modified":"2015-07-03T18:40:04","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T13:10:04","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1227  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMRS. BHARATI CHANDMAL VARMA @ AYESHA KHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/12\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas &amp; S.N. Phukan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>A huge quantity of counterfeit notes of Rs.500 digit<br \/>\nhas been intercepted by the authorities and a case was<br \/>\nregistered by the Thane Police, Maharashtra.  A number of<br \/>\npersons were arrested in connection with the said racket.<br \/>\nWe are now concerned only with the arrest of a lady by name<br \/>\nAyesha Khan (also called Smt. Bharati Chandmal Varma)  the<br \/>\nrespondent in this case.  After the arrest she was produced<br \/>\nbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded her to<br \/>\ncustody. As a charge sheet was not laid within 90 days<br \/>\nthereof she applied for being released on bail as per the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\n(for short the Code).  Though the Metropolitan Magistrate<br \/>\ndisallowed her prayer a single Judge of the High Court of<br \/>\nBombay allowed her to be released on bail solely on the<br \/>\naforesaid ground.  The said order of the High Court is now<br \/>\nbeing challenged by the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n<p>The main contention of the State is that the period of<br \/>\n90 days envisaged in Section 167(2) of the Code should be<br \/>\nreckoned from the date when the police started<br \/>\ninvestigation into the offences under the Maharashtra<br \/>\nControl of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (its acronym is MCOC).\n<\/p>\n<p>For considering the aforesaid contention more details<br \/>\nof the facts are necessary.  Respondent was arrested on<br \/>\n1.4.2001 for the offences under Sections 489A 489B, 489C<br \/>\n120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She was produced<br \/>\nbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.4.2001 and he<br \/>\nremanded the respondent to police custody first and later<br \/>\nto judicial custody.  During the investigation police<br \/>\ndiscovered that organised crimes under MCOC Act had also<br \/>\nbeen committed and the respondent was one of the links<br \/>\nconnected with foreign collaborators in pumping such<br \/>\ncounterfeit currency notes into India. The investigating<br \/>\nagency sought sanction of the authorities under the MCOC<br \/>\nAct for conducting investigation under the said Act. Such<br \/>\nsanction was granted on 21.4.2001 and thenceforth<br \/>\ninvestigation was conducted into the offences under the<br \/>\nMCOC Act also.\tFinally the charge-sheet was laid on<br \/>\n12.7.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent moved for bail principally on the ground<br \/>\nthat charge sheet was not laid within 90 days.\tIf the<br \/>\nperiod of 90 days is to be reckoned from 2.4.2001 there is<br \/>\nno doubt that respondent is entitled to bail under the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. Sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nSection 167 of the Code enjoins that the arrested person<br \/>\nshall be produced before a magistrate if his detention is<br \/>\nrequired for a period beyond 24 hours and any further<br \/>\ncustody of that person can be made only if the magistrate<br \/>\nauthorises to do so. Sub-section (2) empowers the<br \/>\nmagistrate to authorise the arrested person to be detained<br \/>\nin custody for a term not exceeding 15 days and a<br \/>\nmagistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit<br \/>\nthe case for trial is empowered to authorise detention of<br \/>\nthe accused person even beyond the period of 15 days, if<br \/>\nthe magistrate is satisfied that there are adequate grounds<br \/>\nfor doing so.  Nonetheless, such magistrate cannot<br \/>\nauthorise detention for a total period exceeding 90 days<br \/>\nwhere the investigation relates to an offence punishable<br \/>\nwith imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.\t As<br \/>\nthe proviso to Section 167(2) is the hub of the plea made<br \/>\nby the respondent we find it necessary to extract it here.<br \/>\nIt reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) the Magistrate may authorise the<br \/>\ndetention of the accused person, otherwise<br \/>\nthan in the custody of the police, beyond<br \/>\nthe period of fifteen days, if he is<br \/>\nsatisfied that adequate grounds exist for<br \/>\ndoing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise<br \/>\nthe detention of the accused person in<br \/>\ncustody under this paragraph for a total<br \/>\nperiod exceeding,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) ninety days, where the investigation<br \/>\nrelates to an offence punishable with death,<br \/>\nimprisonment for life or imprisonment for a<br \/>\nterm of not less than ten years;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) sixty days, where the investigation<br \/>\nrelates to any other offence, and, on the<br \/>\nexpiry of the said period of ninety days, or<br \/>\nsixty days, as the case may be, the accused<br \/>\nperson shall be released on bail if he is<br \/>\nprepared to and does furnish bail, and every<br \/>\nperson released on bail under this sub-<br \/>\nsection shall be deemed to be so released<br \/>\nunder the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for<br \/>\nthe purposes of that Chapter.\n<\/p>\n<p>{Sub clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso are not relevant<br \/>\nnow and hence they are omitted}.\n<\/p>\n<p>If the position remained under the said proviso the<br \/>\nrespondent has no difficulty to have the impugned order<br \/>\nsustained because the appellant State cannot, by any<br \/>\nstretch of imagination, show that charge-sheet was laid<br \/>\nwithin 90 days from the date she was remanded to the<br \/>\ncustody at the first instance.\tBut the endeavour of the<br \/>\nState was to show that the said proviso can now be read<br \/>\nonly subject to the modifications made by the MCOC Act.<br \/>\nSection 21 of the MCOC Act made modifications of the<br \/>\napplication of Section 167(2) of the Code.  It is useful to<br \/>\nextract Section 21 of that Act.\t It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>21. Modified application of certain<br \/>\nprovisions of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in<br \/>\nthe Code or in any other law, every<br \/>\noffence punishable under this Act,<br \/>\nshall be deemed to be a cognizable<br \/>\noffence within the meaning of clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) of section 2 of the Code and<br \/>\ncognizable case as defined in that<br \/>\nclause shall be construed accordingly.<br \/>\n(2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in<br \/>\nrelation to a case involving an offence<br \/>\npunishable under this Act subject to<br \/>\nthe modifications that, in sub-section<br \/>\n(2),&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) the reference to fifteen days<br \/>\nand sixty days wherever they occur,<br \/>\nshall be construed as references to<br \/>\nthirty days and ninety days<br \/>\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) after the proviso, the following<br \/>\nproviso shall be inserted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided further that if it is not<br \/>\npossible to complete the investigation<br \/>\nwithin the said period of ninety days,<br \/>\nthe Special Court shall extend the said<br \/>\nperiod upto one hundred and eighty<br \/>\ndays, on the report of the Public<br \/>\nProsecutor indicating the progress of<br \/>\nthe investigation and the specific<br \/>\nreasons for the detention of the<br \/>\naccused beyond the said period of<br \/>\nninety days.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) Nothing in section 438 of the Code<br \/>\nshall apply in relation to any case<br \/>\ninvolving the arrest of any person on<br \/>\nan accusation of having committed an<br \/>\noffence punishable under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in<br \/>\nthe Code, no person accused of an<br \/>\noffence punishable under this Act<br \/>\nshall, if in custody, be released on<br \/>\nbail or on his own bond, unless-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given<br \/>\nan opportunity to oppose the<br \/>\napplication of such release; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes<br \/>\nthe application, the Court is<br \/>\nsatisfied that there are reasonable<br \/>\ngrounds for believing that he is not<br \/>\nguilty of such offence and that he is<br \/>\nnot likely to commit any offence<br \/>\nwhile on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in<br \/>\nthe Code, the accused shall not be<br \/>\ngranted bail if it is noticed by the<br \/>\nCourt that he was on bail in an offence<br \/>\nunder this Act, or under any other Act,<br \/>\non the date of the offence in question.<br \/>\n(6) The limitations on granting of bail<br \/>\nspecified in sub-section (4) are in<br \/>\naddition to the limitations under the<br \/>\nCode or any other law for the time<br \/>\nbeing in force on the granting of bail.<br \/>\n(7) The police officer seeking the custody<br \/>\nof any person for pre-indictment or<br \/>\npre-trial interrogation from the<br \/>\njudicial custody shall file a written<br \/>\nstatement explaining the reason for<br \/>\nseeking such custody and also for the<br \/>\ndelay, if any in seeking the police<br \/>\ncustody.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nState of Maharashtra that the Public Prosecutor has not<br \/>\nfiled any report before the Special Court showing reasons<br \/>\nfor the detention of the respondent beyond 90 days from the<br \/>\ndate of the first remand order.\t Hence they are disabled<br \/>\nfrom contending that the proviso to Section 21(2) of the<br \/>\nMCOC Act would enable the investigating agency to have the<br \/>\npre-trial custody of the respondent extended beyond 90<br \/>\ndays. In order to circumvent the said hurdle learned<br \/>\ncounsel adopted a two-fold contention.\tFirst is that the<br \/>\nperiod of 90 days can be reckoned from 21.4.2001 (the date<br \/>\nwhen the investigation was allowed to be conducted for the<br \/>\noffence under the MCOC Act).  Second is that the provision<br \/>\nregarding bail under the said Act is very stringent as<br \/>\nquoted above and the High Court did not consider it from<br \/>\nthe said angle.\n<\/p>\n<p>The second limb of the said contention need not bother<br \/>\nus at the present stage as that would become germane only<br \/>\nwhen any motion for bail is made de hors Section 167(2) of<br \/>\nthe Code.  For that purpose we may refer to the decision of<br \/>\na three Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1747003\/\">Uday Mohanlal Acharya<br \/>\nvs. State of Maharashtra<\/a>{2001 (5) SCC 453}. Pattanaik J.,<br \/>\nwho spoke for the majority view, pointed out that even in<br \/>\ncases where the accused who is entitled to be released on<br \/>\nbail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code can be<br \/>\ndealt with by the magistrate concerned by remanding into<br \/>\ncustody subject to all the provisions of the Code relating<br \/>\nto bail etc. This is what the learned Judges have stated on<br \/>\nthat aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>Such an accused, who thus is entitled to be<br \/>\nreleased on bail in enforcement of his<br \/>\nindefeasible right will, however, have to be<br \/>\nproduced before the Magistrate on a charge-<br \/>\nsheet being filed in accordance with Section<br \/>\n209 and the Magistrate must deal with him in<br \/>\nthe matter of remand to custody subject to<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Code relating to bail<br \/>\nand subject to the provisions of<br \/>\ncancellation of bail, already granted in<br \/>\naccordance with the law laid down by this<br \/>\nCourt in the case of Mohd. Iqbal v. State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra{1996 (1) SCC 722}.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo we leave the second limb of the contention without<br \/>\nexpressing any opinion on the merits since it is open to<br \/>\nthe court concerned to consider that aspect when any motion<br \/>\nis made in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDealing with the first limb of the contention learned<br \/>\ncounsel elaborated it by reference to Section 23(1) of the<br \/>\nMCOC Act, which contains an embargo that notwithstanding<br \/>\nanything contained in the Code no information about the<br \/>\ncommission of an offence of organised crime under this Act,<br \/>\nshall be recorded by a police officer without the prior<br \/>\napproval of the police officer not below the rank of the<br \/>\nDeputy Inspector General of Police.  Hence it was<br \/>\nsubmitted that investigation was impermissible until the<br \/>\napproval has been accorded and its corollary is that the<br \/>\nperiod for completion of investigation could be counted<br \/>\nonly from the date when investigation could legally be<br \/>\ncommenced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the application of the proviso to Section 167(2)<br \/>\nof the Code there is no necessity to consider when the<br \/>\ninvestigation could legally have commenced.  That proviso<br \/>\nis intended only for keeping an arrested person under<br \/>\ndetention for the purpose of investigation and the<br \/>\nlegislature has provided a maximum period for such<br \/>\ndetention.  On the expiry of the said period the further<br \/>\ncustody becomes unauthorized and hence it is mandated that<br \/>\nthe arrested person shall be released on bail if he is<br \/>\nprepared to and does furnish bail.  It may be a different<br \/>\nposition if the same accused was found to have involved in<br \/>\nsome other offence disconnected from the offence for which<br \/>\nhe was arrested. In such an eventuality the officer<br \/>\ninvestigating such second offence can exercise the power of<br \/>\narresting him in connection with the second case. But if<br \/>\nthe investigation into the offence for which he was<br \/>\narrested initially had revealed other ramifications<br \/>\nassociated therewith, any further investigation would<br \/>\ncontinue to relate to the same arrest and hence the period<br \/>\nenvisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) would remain<br \/>\nunextendable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe are, therefore, unable to agree with the contention<br \/>\nof the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that a<br \/>\nnew period of 90 days would commence from the date when<br \/>\napproval was accorded under Section 23 of the MCOC Act for<br \/>\ninitiating investigation for any offence under the said<br \/>\nAct. In the present case, accused would be entitled to<br \/>\nbail, not on the merits of the case, but on account of the<br \/>\ndefault of the investigating agency to complete the<br \/>\ninvestigation within 90 days from the date of the first<br \/>\nremand of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without prejudice<br \/>\nto the right of the prosecution to move for cancellation of<br \/>\nthe bail in the manner indicated by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1747003\/\">Uday<br \/>\nMohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> (supra), the<br \/>\nrelevant portion of which has been extracted above.\n<\/p>\n<p>As the respondent has been taken back to jail when the<br \/>\nimpugned order was suspended we direct the jail authorities<br \/>\nto release her on the strength of the bail bond which she<br \/>\nhad executed pursuant to the order of the High Court. Such<br \/>\nbail bond would thus revive and could be enforced as and<br \/>\nwhen necessary.\t The appeal is thus dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\tJ<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t[ K.T. Thomas ]<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\tJ<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t[ S.N. Phukan ]<\/p>\n<p>December 4, 2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1227 of 2001 PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT: MRS. BHARATI CHANDMAL VARMA @ AYESHA KHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/2001 BENCH: K.T. Thomas &amp; S.N. Phukan [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2175,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001"},"wordCount":2175,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ ... on 4 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T13:10:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mrs-bharati-chandmal-varma-on-4-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ &#8230; on 4 December, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}