Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 29 (MP)

Annu @ Anil v. State of M. P.

2008-01-08

A.K.SAXENA

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard. Perused the case diary. 2. This application under section 167 (2) read with section 439 of Cr.PC, has been filed in connection with Crime No. 549/07 registered at Police Station Adhartal, labalpur, under sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. 3. As per allegations, the application was found in possession of 15 kg 300 gms of Ganja which was seized from his possession. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kg or more and this shows that it is a case of medium quantity of Ganja and this offence is punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act, and according to it, the Rigorous Imprisonment may extend to ten years and fine, which may extend to Rupees one lac. It has been further contended that since the applicant can be convicted for less than ten years, therefore, under section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr.PC, the charge-sheet should be filed within 60 days and not within 180 days. The trial Court has wrongly mentioned in the order impugned that the charge-sheet should have been filed within 120 days because it is against the provisions. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the cases of Rajeev Chaturvediv. State (NCT) of Delhi [ (2001) 5 SCC 34 ] and the order passed by this Court in MCrC No. 4721/06 [Smt. Rama Devi v. State of M.P] on 19.7.2006] 2007 (1) MPWN 102 ] He also relied on the case of Banwari v. State of M.P [ 1993 JLJ 537 ] and argued that because of in action of the Magistrate, if a person is not granted bail, it does not mean that after filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant would not be entitled for bail under section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. 5. It has been held in above mentioned first two cases that the expression "not less than" would mean the imprisonment should be ten years or more and would cover only those offences for which punishment could be for a clear period of ten years or more, and in these circumstances, the charge-sheet could have been filed within 60 days and not within 180 days. Since the charge-sheet could not be filed within 60 days, therefore, the applicant was entitled for bail under section 167 (2) of Cr.PC and the Court below has committed a mistake by disallowing the bail application of the applicant. 6. Having considered all the facts and above legal position, I found that the trial Court has committed a 'mistake. The period for filing the charge-sheet in this matter was 60 days only and within that period, the prosecution has totally failed to file the charge-sheet and in these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail under section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. 7. The application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Annu alias Anil shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.