9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, 1973 (for short "the Code") and declined to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, In-charge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Bail Petition No. 542 of 2013, and upheld the refusal to release the Appellant on bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur on 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2013, registered at Police Station, Chainpur, relating to offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended Under Section 167 of the Code fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicature at Patna, praying that order passed by the Sessions Judge, as above, and the one passed by the Magistrate be quashed. But the High Court also took the view that since the charge sheet had already been filed within the period of ninety days, as such, it did not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the original record of the case. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code reads as under: 167(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; (b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in custody by the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the high Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police. Explanation I.-For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is endorsement of the Magistrate on 3.10.2013 that the charge sheet has already been received. 8. The charge sheet against the Appellant, in the original record, shows that the Investigating Officer signed it and submitted the same on 30.9.2013. Though the clerk concerned has not made any endorsement as to when actually the charge sheet was received, but there is endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which shows that he has mentioned "seen" on 3.10.2013 and signed at the top of the first page of the charge sheet. Order sheet of the court of the Magistrate also corroborates that on 3.10.2013 the clerk concerned reported to Chief Judicial Magistrate that the charge sheet had already been received. 9. It is argued on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court that period of ninety days Under Section 167(2) of the Code shall be computed from the date of remand of the accused and not from the date of his arrest Under Section 57 of the Code. However, in the present case, we have to see the relevant date as the date when the accused surrendered and remanded by the court. 12. In State of M.P. v. Rustam and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 221, this Court has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial custody should be excluded, and the day on which challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being so, in our opinion, in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on nin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
