Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the instant petition is that FIR No.101 dated 22.05.2021, Anenxure P-1, has been lodged for offences under Sections 302, 34, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, wherein Sections 118, 120-B, IPC were added and Section 34, IPC was deleted later on, lodged at Police Station Sector-6, Dharuhera, Rewari on the statement of Rocky Yadav. Complainant alleged that his family has enmity with Vishal Sarsar, Ajay, Gullu @ Pritam, Sunnu @ Ravi. On 21.05.2021, the accused did a recce of his house and recorded a video. On the fateful day at about 08:00 P.M., all the four accused came and shot dead his brother Kanwar Singh @ Pakari. Complainant was sitting on a chair near the main gate and witnessed the homicide. Complainant's brother was immediately taken to a hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Surender, Bissu @ Vishwas, Sachin @ Kacchu, Pawan Yadav Sidhrwarli and few other persons were also involved. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application for release of the petitioner on default bail was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, which stood rejected vide impugned order, Annexure P-4 and a revision petition, preferred by the petitioner, was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order, Annexure P-7. Both the orders have been assailed in the present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the arrest of the petitioner was made under Section 118, IPC and upon conclusion of investigation, he has been charge-sheeted for the said offence. He has raised an argument that as the petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 118, IPC, challan against him was required to be presented within a period of sixty days and on the failure of the investigating 2 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118267 2023:PHHC:118267 agency to do so, petitioner, who was apprehended on 23.05.2021, was entitled to be released on statutory bail. He has placed reliance upon the Full Bench's judgment of the Patna High Court in Shankar Ram Versus The State 1986 Crl. LJ 707.

4. Opposing the petition, State counsel while making reference to the status report filed by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bawal, District Rewari has contended that the petitioner conspired with co-accused to commit the murder and charge Annexure P- 8 has been framed against him under Section 302, IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, instead of Section 118 IPC. He asserts that the prescribed period for completion of investigation is ninety days and charge-sheet having been presented within the period prescribed under Section 167(2), application for default bail, preferred by the petitioner, was pre-mature and has been rightly declined by both the Courts. He submits that trial is at an advanced stage as 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

8. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner deserves to be tested on another anvil. If his argument is accepted that would mean that the prescribed period for completion of investigation for every accused in custody would be different, that is, sixty days or ninety days depending upon the allegation against each one of them. That is not the intention behind the provision.

9. Furthermore, although the final report has been presented by the investigation agency against the petitioner under Section 118, IPC, but on examination of the material placed before it, learned Sessions 5 of 6 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118267 2023:PHHC:118267 Judge by order, Annexure P-8, has framed charge against the petitioner and the co-accused for offences under Sections 302, IPC read with 120- B, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the light of this development also the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner has to fail. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is on a totally different footing. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Shankar Ram's case (supra) has authoritatively inter alia held that the final report can be filed after completion of the investigation in respect of the offences alleged against some of the accused while keeping the investigation alive against the co-accused and the accused against whom investigation has concluded are not entitled to get the benefit of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that investigation qua other accused has not culminated.