Rajeev Chaudhary vs State on 26 May, 2000
The application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor pointing out that the petitioner was accused of an offence punishable under Section 386, IPC with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine. The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation in the case of the petitioner related to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and hence a period of 90 days was available to the police for completing the investigation as per Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. However, Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the investiga\tion did not relate to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term of ten years and since the petitioner had already remained in custody for a period of 60 days he was entitled to be released on bail in view of Clause (ii) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2). The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner and held that Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) would apply only when the investigation related to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a minimum term of ten years. For taking such a view the learned Metropolitan Magistrate relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sohan Lal v. State reported in 1991 All Cri-R 383 and a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Om Prakash Gabbar v. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 Cri. LJ. 2974-II (1997) CCR 90 (DB).