9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1434 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking condonation of delay of 12 days in preferring the present revision petition and 66 days in re-filing the petition - Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. - HELD THAT - In present case the factual position emerges that the accused was arrested on 29.10.2014 and the charge sheet was filed before the court on 26.12.2014. On perusal of the charge sheet the court finding that certain aspects were incomplete due to incomplete investigation the Investigating Officer was directed to further investigate into the matter and the charge sheet was returned for the purpose of filing the charge sheet after completing the investigation on all aspects. Undisputedly Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. precludes the concerned Magistrate to have the custody of the detenue beyond 60 days until he receives the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C. to adjudicate upon the same. In the present case accepting an incomplete report on 26.12.2014 and returning the same on account of incomplete investigation on certain aspects and making the accused disentitled for benefit under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is an apparent abuse of law - this court is of the considered opinion that charge sheet filed within statutory period of 60 days ought to be complete to enable the concerned Magistrate to adjudicate and not an incomplete charge sheet to infringe upon the right of the accused to be released on bail. The order passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the accused was not granted bail is not sustainable in the eye of law and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be upheld - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition. 2. Challenge to the order granting bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 3. Compliance with Section 167 of Cr. P.C. regarding filing of charge sheet within 60 days of arrest. 4. Interpretation of the law regarding the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. 5. Consideration of incomplete charge sheet and its impact on the accused's right to bail. Issue 1: Condonation of Delay The petitioner filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 12-day delay in filing the revision petition and a 66-day delay in re-filing the petition. The court, after considering the reasons provided in the applications, condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the petition, allowing the applications. Issue 2: Challenge to Bail Order The State challenged the order granting bail to the respondent under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. The respondent was accused of misappropriating funds from ATMs and was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The State contended that the charge sheet was filed within 60 days of arrest, making the bail application not maintainable. The respondent argued that further investigation was ordered after the charge sheet was filed, justifying the grant of bail by the Sessions Judge. Issue 3: Compliance with Section 167 of Cr. P.C. The court examined the compliance with Section 167 of Cr. P.C., which requires the filing of a charge sheet within 60 days of arrest. The Metropolitan Magistrate had returned the charge sheet for further investigation after finding it incomplete. The court noted that the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period, but incomplete investigation led to the denial of bail to the accused, which was deemed an abuse of law. Issue 4: Interpretation of Statutory Bail Right The court analyzed the interpretation of the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. It emphasized that a charge sheet filed within the statutory period should be complete to enable the Magistrate to adjudicate on bail. Incomplete charge sheets should not infringe upon the accused's right to bail, as seen in this case. Issue 5: Consideration of Incomplete Charge Sheet The court concluded that accepting an incomplete charge sheet and denying bail based on incomplete investigation was an abuse of law. It held that the accused's right to be released on bail should not be infringed by incomplete filings. The order granting bail to the respondent was upheld, and the petition challenging it was dismissed. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the condonation of delay, challenge to the bail order, compliance with Section 167 of Cr. P.C., interpretation of statutory bail rights, and the impact of incomplete charge sheets on the accused's right to bail.
|
