Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Ram. vs . State Of Rajasthan. on 3 December, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION No.3401/2015
Laxman Ram. VS. State of Rajasthan.
Date of Order: 03.12.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. panwar, Public Prosecutor.
....
By way of this miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat, District Bikaner in connection with FIR No.111/2015, Police Station Kolayat, Bikaner registered for the offences under Sections 306, 498-A and 34 IPC and the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Case), Bikaner whereby the revision preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 05.11.2015 was dismissed.
The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR on 01.09.2015 for offence under Section 306, 498A IPC. When, the police failed to submit a charge-sheet in the concerned court despite lapse of the period of 60 days, an application was moved on behalf of the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for default bail. Such application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kolayat on 05.11.2015 and the revision preferred by the accused against 2. the Magistrate's order has also been dismissed as noted above. Upon this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition.
Notice of the miscellaneous petition was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and with the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, the miscellaneous petition has been heard and is being decided today itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence under Section 306 IPC for which the petitioner is being prosecuted carries a sentence of imprisonment for a term upto 10 years. As per him, the case for the purpose of remand, would be covered by Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel thus urges that failure of the investigating officer to put up a charge-sheet against the accused in the concerned court within a period of 60 days from the date of his arrest, entitles him to be released on bail as of right. He relies on the judgments rendered in the cases of Rajeev Choudhary vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2001 SCC (Cri) 819 and Dam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 626 and contends that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.
In the opinion of this Court, the controversy which has been raised by the petitioner in this case is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajeev Choudhary (supra) considered an identical controversy arising out of an FIR registered for the offence under Section 386 IPC and held that where the punishment provided for the offence is for a term of 3. upto 10 years, the investigating officer would be under an obligation to file the charge-sheet within a period of 60 days of arrest failing which, the accused becomes entitled to compulsive bail. In the case of Dam Singh (supra), this Court examined the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in reference to the offence of possession of non-commercial quantity of a narcotic drugs. For the said offence also, the imprisonment provided is for a term which may extend to 10 years. The Court held that failure of the prosecuting agency to submit a charge-sheet within a period of 60 days would entitle the accused to be released on bail. Thus the view taken by the courts below in the case at hand that the outer limit for filing chargesheet in the case would be 90 days and not 60 days is totally illegal.
As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the courts below suffer from gross illegality and amount to an abuse of process of law. As such, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kolayat, District Bikaner and the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Case), Bikaner are quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to release the petitioner on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each and on fulfilling the usual terms and conditions.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tikam/ Item No.88