Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2598 (RAJ)

VISHAMBHAR DAS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-11-27

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 2. F.I.R. No. 559/2017, was registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 305, 306 and 384 I.P.C. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the police has investigated the case for offence under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 7.9.2017 and after he moved the application under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 on 8.11.2017 that offence under Section 305, 384 IPC was added by the police to deprive the petitioner of the liberty of bail. My attention has been drawn towards the remand papers of the co-accused dated 8.11.2017, wherein, the offence mentioned was under Sections 306 and 384 IPC and at that time also offence under Section 305 IPC was not added. 4. It is contended that the investigation took place for offence under Section 306 IPC. Charge-sheet has not been filed within sixty days of the arrest of the petitioner and subsequently if some other section is added that could not come in way of grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan 2002 Criminal (SC) 10, wherein offences under MCOC Act was added after twenty one days of the investigation for offence under Section 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 of IPC. The Apex Court held that the investigation into the offence for which a person was arrested would continue to relate to the same offence, even if other offence is added and hence the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) cannot be extended. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has placed reliance on "Pawan Jogi v. State of Rajasthan" decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 28.7.2015, wherein Section 305 of IPC was added in lieu of Section 306 of IPC. The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 and held that period of ninety days would be applicable. 7. I have considered the contentions. In the present case, in hand five persons have died by consuming poison. One of the family member took loan from lenders and gave it to other person through the petitioner. 7. I have considered the contentions. In the present case, in hand five persons have died by consuming poison. One of the family member took loan from lenders and gave it to other person through the petitioner. On demand being raised by the lenders the deceased committed suicide after poisoning his family members including a minor child. The police initially proceeded under Section 306 of IPC and was required to file the charge-sheet within sixty days after the date of arrest. The sixty days period expired on 6.11.2017 and application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, 1973 was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.2017 other co-accused was arrested later and in his remind order the offence mentioned was Section 306, 384 of IPC. 8. In view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan (supra) and the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within sixty days. 9. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 10. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.