Patna High Court
Sutta Rai @ Laxman Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 16 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)BLJR1278
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; and the learned Counsel appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.10.98 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Aurai P.S. Case No. 33/98 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, By the said order, the Court below refused to accept the bail bond submitted by the petitioner for his release.
3. It appears that the petitioner was granted bail on 5.10.98 under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner furnished bail bonds with affidavit of the bailors and other documents as securities but the Court below having not satisfied with the bailors rejected the bail bonds. On 7.10.98 the petitioner filed a petition and furnished fresh bail bonds for release of the petitioner, but the Court below rejected the same by the impugned order on the ground that chargesheet was submitted on 6.10.98.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that once bail was granted to the petitioner for the non-submission of charge-sheet within the statutory period in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the Court cannot refuse to release the petitioner on the ground of submission of charge-sheet after the expiry of the statutory period. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State put reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. The State of Bihar 1999 Bihar Criminal Cases Reporter and submitted that after the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is submitted the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code had no application and the Court below has rightly rejected the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the affidavit and the impugned order passed by the Court below. Admittedly, in the instant case charge-sheet was not submitted within the statutory period of 90 days. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for his release under Section 167(2) of the Code and order was passed on that petition on 5.10. 98 and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount. On the same day i.e. 5.10.98 the petitioner furnished bail bond but the bail bond was not accepted because the Court below was not satisfied with the bailors. Even till 5.10.98 no charge-sheet was submitted by the police. The petitioner then filed a fresh bail bond and the documents of property for his release but the Court below rejected the petition on the ground that charge-sheet was received on 6.10.98. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below is not correct in law in rejecting the bail bond and refusing to release the petitioner merely on the ground of submission of charge sheet later on. It is well settled that if an accused charged with any kind of offence, becomes entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code, that statutory right cannot be defeated by keeping the applications pending till the charge-sheet is submitted. It is equally well settled that on the expiry of statutory period the accused is entitled to be released under Section 167(2) of the Code and such order of release shall be deemed to have been an order passed under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code. In the case of Md. Iqbal Madar Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra , the Supreme Court observed:
During hearing of the appeal, it was pointed out by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that some Courts in order to defeat the right of the accused to be released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) after expiry of the statutory period for completion of the investigation, keep the applications for bail pending for some days so that in the meantime, charge-sheets are submitted. Any such act on the part of any Court cannot be approved. If an accused charged with any kind of offence becomes entitled to be released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2), that statutory right should not be defeated by keeping the applications pending till the charge-sheets are submitted so that the right which had accrued is extinguished and defeated.
6. The ratio decided by this Court in Ranjit Singh case (supra) relied upon by the State Counsel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In that case the petitioner was remanded to custody on 16.12.96 the period of 90 days expired on 16.3.97. The petitioner filed application for bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code on 17.3.97. The Magistrate directed the office to submit report whether charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter on 22.3.97, the Magistrate rejected the petition on the ground that charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken on 18.3.97. On the basis of these facts this Court held that once chargesheet is submitted and cognizance has been taken the accused is not entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. Here in the instant case admittedly no charge-sheet was submitted after the expiry of 90 days and before the date when the Court passed a reasoned order directing the release of the petitioner on bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code. Merely the bail bond was not accepted as it was not satisfactory, in my opinion, therefore, the rejection of the petition and the bail bond furnished by the petitioner by the Court below is illegal and unwarranted in law.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, this application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The Court below is directed to accept the bail bond so furnished by the petitioner and passed order accordingly.