Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1118 (MP)

Uttam Sahu v. State of M. P.

2014-09-04

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant. 3. Applicant has been arrested on 25.05.2014 in connection with Crime No. 506/2014 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 4. It is submitted by Shri Katare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, that this bail application has been preferred by the applicant before this Court on 16.06.2014. In the meanwhile, one application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial court because within a period of 90 days charge-sheet was not filed. The same application was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014 by the trial court on the ground that today the charge-sheet has been filed by the Police therefore, applicant is not entitled to get any relief under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 5. It is submitted by Shri Katare, learned counsel, that admittedly 90 days from the date of remand of accused in judicial custody were completed before 27.08.2014 and thereafter on 27.08.2014 application was filed by the applicant under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Just after a period of 1/2 an hour, charge-sheet has been filed. But it makes no difference because right has already been accrued since the application was filed by the applicant before the trial court in view of pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State, GNCTD & Others reported in : 2013 Cr. L.R. (SC) 126. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that order passed by the learned trial court is illegal. It is also submitted that at the same time, this bail application was also pending before this Court, therefore, right accrued under Section 167(2)of Cr.P.C. can be availed and relief can be granted by this Court also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Som Nath and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab reported in : 2012(1) Crimes 123 (P & H). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, rejection order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) has been perused. 8. Vs. State of Punjab reported in : 2012(1) Crimes 123 (P & H). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, rejection order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) has been perused. 8. It is clear that on 27.08.2014 when the application was dismissed period of 90 days had already been completed. Application was filed and then after a period of 1/2 an hour charge-sheet was filed. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi (supra), it is clear that right to be enlarged on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. had already been accrued to the applicant and that could not have been denied by the court. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, application is allowed but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, application is allowed and it is directed that applicant Uttam Sahu be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. 10. A copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. 11. Certified copy as per rules.