Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 644 (PAT)

Karu Manjhi v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-25

J.N.BHATT, NAGENDRA RAI

body2005
Judgment 1. In this petition a short question which has emerged for consideration under limited jurisdiction is as to whether the petitioner an accused in a murder case in Pakri Barawan P.S. Case No. 64 of 2004 wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah has passed an order dated 6.9.2001 rejecting an application of the petitioner submitted for bail by invocation of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr PC), contending that the petitioner has acquired an indefeasible right and the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed in Revision by the learned Sessions Judge, is totally illegal requiring interference of this Court so as to quash and set aside the same. 2. Mr. A.N. Singh, learned standing counsel has appeared on behalf of the State. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. We have examined the factual profile emerging from the record of this case. 3. A bail application with the aid of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Cr PC came to be filed by the petitioner before the trial Magistrate, inter alia, contending that the charge-sheet was not filed within the prescribed statutory limit of 90 days and. therefore, he is entitled to default bail which request was rejected. In our opinion, from the factual profile, as well as, the settled legal proposition and provisions of law, the facts of the present case undoubtedly lead us to only one conclusion that the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed in Revision by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained, being erroneous and not supportable in view of the following facts : (1) There is no dispute above the fact that the petitioner-accused surrendered to custody, on 7.6.2004, in a case in which allegation of murder is made; (2) Obvious, therefore, it is rightly submitted jointly that the period of 90 days will expire on 5.9.2004; (3) The charge-sheet came to be filed on 6.9.2004; and (4) The application for default bail, also, came to be filed on 6.9.2004. 4. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the indisputable aspects highlighted above, the ratio propounded by the Honable Apex Court in Uday Mohan-lal Acharya V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (5) SCC, 453 : 2001 (2) East Cr C 256(SC)" is, squarely, attracted, wherein in a similar situation it has been expounded and clearly held that the accused persons indefeasible right to bail in terms of sub-clause (2) of Section 167 of the Cr PC cannot be defeated only on the ground that subsequently bail application came to be filed and accused was not released on bail while hearing took place. We, therefore, find much substance in the present petition. 5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same affirmed in Revision by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. The petitioner Karu Manjhi is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Pakri Barwan P.S. Case No. 64 of 2004. 6. Before parting, let it be mentioned that pursuant to the direction of this. Court one Ram Binay Singh, the Investigation Officer (IO) and the present Officer-in-charge of the Police Station have appeared before us today. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for these two persons and other learned Advocates, we are of the primafacie view that despite the factum of charge-sheet having been ready to file on 31.8.2004 as per the report produced the Investigating Officer Mr. Ram Binay Singh did not file the charge-sheet, till 6.9.2004 and immediately on the next date after completion of 90 days the filing of the same was nothing but an attempt to help the accused for whatever reasons not known to us in absence of explanation and instead of dealing with further at this stage, by us, on judicial side, since he is retired from service, we direct the Director General of Police, Bihar to take departmental actions expeditiously but not later than 30.11.2005 against him keeping in mind the relevant provisions of Service Rules and Police Manual, as well as, the Pension Rules, with report to the Registry failing which it shall be open for the concerned parties to move for further directions. We also direct the Pegistry to bring up this matter for further direction before us if no report is filed on 30.11.2005. 8. In so far as Bijay Kumar Singh, the present Officer-in-charge of the Police Station is concerned, he was not concerned or associated with the investigation till the filing of the charge-sheet. He came into the picture after the submission of the charge-sheet. Therefore, we drop the proceedings against him. Since both the aforesaid two persons, namely. Ram Binay Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh have appeared before us pursuant to our direction, the non-bailable warrant of arrest earlier issued against them shall stand discharged. 9. Accordingly, this petition shall stand allowed. 10. We direct the Registry to send a writ/a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Bihar, as early as possible but not later than one week. 11. On depositing the cost, this order may be communicated to the Court concerned by Fax.