Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 366 (CHH)

RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF M. P.

2006-07-19

A.K.SAXENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. Case diary perused. This application has been filed under section 439 read with section 167(2) of CrPC in connection with Crime No. 97/06 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur under sections 8/20 of NDPS Act on these grounds that the applicant, who is a lady aged about 40 years, has not committed any offence. She is innocent. She was arrested on 23.2.2006 and the concerned Police Station failed to file charge-sheet within 60 days. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application for bail on 27.4.2006. Since, the charge-sheet could not be submitted within 60 days as provided under section 167 (2) of the CrPC, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is entitled for bail under section 167 (2) of CrPC as well as on merits also, as nothing was found in the possession of the applicant. She has been arrested in a false case. It is further submitted that the Special Court has come to this wrong conclusion that since medium quantity of Ganja was found in the possession of the applicant and the charge-sheet was filed within 180 days, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 3. The present case is not of commercial quantity of Ganja. As per schedule, the commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kg. and more. It is alleged that the applicant was found in possession of 12 kg. of Ganja. It means, it is a case of medium quantity of Ganja and it has been provided under section 20 of NDPS Act that for possession of medium quantity of Ganja, imprisonment may extend up to 10 years and a fine may extend to Rs. One lakh. 4. It has been provided in section 167 (2) of CrPC that the accused can be detained for a period of 90 days where, the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years. It is further provided that where the investigation relates to any other offence, this period would be 60 days. It was observed in Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi that the expression "not less than" would mean imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only those offences for which punishment could be imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more. It was observed in Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi that the expression "not less than" would mean imprisonment should be 10 years or more and would cover only those offences for which punishment could be imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more. It would not cover the offence for which punishment could be imprisonment for less than 10 years. It means, where the punishment may extend to 10 years imprisonment, the period of filing of charge-sheet would be 60 days, as provided under section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of the CrPC and not 180 days as held by the Special Judge. 5. It is an admitted fact that the charge-sheet could not be submitted within 60 days as provided under section 167 (2) of the CrPC. In these circumstances, the applicant was entitled for bail. 6. The application is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the applicant Smt. Rama Devi @ Meena Devi shall be enlarged on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (NDPS) Jabalpur. Bail Granted.