Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 563 (MP)

Manish Rai v. State of M. P.

2010-05-17

P.K.JAISWAL

body2010
Judgment Heard on the question of admission. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant against the order dated 18-3-2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, in Criminal Case No. 550/2009, whereby he rejected bail to the applicant under Section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that Section 306, IPC provides punishment of 10 years and as such the period provided under the law is 60 days. As the police had not filed a charge-sheet within 60 days of its production in the Court, the petitioner filed bail application under Section 167 (2) of Cr.PC, which was wrongly rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that Section 306 of IPC provides punishment of 10 years and as such period provided under the law is 90 days. He submits that the learned Court below committed illegality in rejecting the application. In support of the said contention, he drew my attention to the decision of Gwalior Bench in the case of Ram Dayal Gupta Vs. State of M.P., 1999 (2) MPWN 39 . 3. The object behind the enactment of Section 167 of the Code was that the detention of an accused person should not be permitted, in custody pending investigation for any unreasonably longer period. Proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code prescribes the outer limit which the investigation must be completed. The proviso to sub-section (2) fixes the outer limit within which the investigation must be completed and in case the same is not completed within the said prescribed period, the accused would acquire a right to seek to be released on bail and if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, the Magistrate shall release him on bail and such release shall be deemed to be grant of bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the investigation is not completed within the period of ninety days or sixty days then the accused has to be released on bail as provided under the proviso to Section 167 (2). The petitioner was arrested on 4-1-2010 and on 18-3-2010 he completed 71 days of judicial custody but no charge-sheet was submitted within 60 days as provided under Section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. Proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) reads as under :- 167. The petitioner was arrested on 4-1-2010 and on 18-3-2010 he completed 71 days of judicial custody but no charge-sheet was submitted within 60 days as provided under Section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. Proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) reads as under :- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.- (1) * * * * * * *** (2)*** *** *** Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii)*** *** *** 4. Further, Section 306 of IPC provides as under :- 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 5. From the relevant part of the aforesaid sections, it is apparent that pending investigation relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than 10 years", the Magistrate is empowered to authorise the detention of the accused in custody for not more than 90 days. For rest of the offences, the period prescribed is 60 days. Hence in cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, the accused could be detained up to a period of 90 days. In this context, 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. Under Section 306 punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. That means, imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. Hence, it could not be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more. Under Section 306 punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. That means, imprisonment can be for a clear period of 10 years or less. Hence, it could not be said that minimum sentence would be 10 years or more. Further, in context also, if I consider clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167 (2), it would be applicable in case where investigation relates to an offence punishable (1) with death; (2) imprisonment for life; and (3) imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. It would not cover the offence for which punishment could be imprisonment for less than 10 years. Under Section 306 of IPC, imprisonment can vary from minimum to maximum 10 years and it cannot be said that imprisonment prescribed is not less than 10 years. 6. Punishment provided under Sections 306 and 386 of IPC are same. Under Section 386 also punishment provided is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend upto 10 years and also fine. In Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2001) 5 SCC 34 , the Apex Court held that imprisonment for a term of "not less than 10 years", covers offence punishable with imprisonment for a clear period of 10 years or more. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (supra), this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has not committed any legal error in rejecting the application for grant of bail filed by the applicant under Section 167 (2) of Cr.PC. 7. In view of above, it is apparent that in cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, the accused could be detained up to a period of 90 days. 8. For the above mentioned reasons, the criminal revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.