Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 367 (PNJ)

Pipal Singh v. State of Punjab

2023-01-24

HARKESH MANUJA

body2023
JUDGMENT Harkesh Manu J A, J.(Oral) - By way of present petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 01.09.2021 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, whereby, the bail bonds furnished at the instance of petitioner in pursuance to an order dated 27.08.2021 granting regular bail in his favour under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined. 2. The facts of the case are that having been implicated in case FIR No.25 dated 27.02.2021 under Section 22/61/85 NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, the petitioner moved an application for grant of concession of regular bail invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid application was presented before the Special Court at Ferozepur on 27.08.2021 pointing out that final report in case FIR No.25 dated 27.02.2021, registered against the petitioner was not presented by the investigating agency by that time. The Special Judge, Ferozepur, vide order dated 27.08.2021, granted the benefit under the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of petitioner thereby, ordering his release on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. 3. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his bail bonds/surety bonds before the concerned Court on 31.08.2021, whereupon, notice was issued for 01.09.2021. On the said date i.e. 01.09.2021, a prayer was made on behalf of petitioner for acceptance of bail bonds/surety bonds. On the other hand, the said prayer was opposed by respondents, on the plea that in the meanwhile, on 28.08.2021, the charge-sheet stood filed at the instance of investigating agency. After considering the fact that the chargesheet was presented on 28.08.2021, Learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2021. It is the said order which has now been assailed by way of present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order granted in favour of the petitioner with the aid of sub-Section 2 of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure was passed by the trial Court on 27.08.2021 i.e. on Friday. It is the said order which has now been assailed by way of present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order granted in favour of the petitioner with the aid of sub-Section 2 of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure was passed by the trial Court on 27.08.2021 i.e. on Friday. He submits that from 28.08.2021 to 30.08.2021, the Courts were not functional at Ferozepur on account of continuous holidays; 28.08.2021, 29.08.2021 and 30.08.2021 being Saturday, Sunday and Janmashtmi, respectively and as such, the application for release of the petitioner along with submission of his bail bonds/surety bonds was presented before the Special Court on 31.08.2021 without causing any further delay and therefore, the filing of charge-sheet at the instance of prosecution during this period on 28.08.2021 could not have nullified the effect of order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Special Court. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that once the challan stood filed on 28.08.2021, petitioner could not have been released by the acceptance of his bail bonds/surety bonds and as such his prayer in this regard was rightly declined by the Special Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Once order dated 27.08.2021 stood passed in favour of petitioner ordering his release on bail being based on Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the filing of charge-sheet thereafter, by the investigating agency would not render the right vested in his favour to be negatory. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Ravindr an Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 800. The relevant paragraph 13.1 of the same is reproduced hereunder: "13.1 However, the expression 'the accused does furnish bail' in Section 167(2) and Explanation I thereto cannot be interpreted to mean that if the accused, in spite of being ready and willing, could not furnish bail on account of the pendency of the bail application before the Magistrate, or because the challenge to the rejection of his bail application was pending before a higher forum, his continued detention in custody is authorized. If such an interpretation is accepted, the application of the Proviso to Section 167(2) would be narrowly confined only to those cases where the Magistrate is able to instantaneously decide the bail application as soon as it is preferred before the Court, which may sometimes not be logistically possible given the pendency of the docket across courts or for other reasons. Moreover, the application for bail has to be decided only after notice to the public prosecutor. Such a strict interpretation of the Proviso would defeat the rights of the accused. Hence his right to be released on bail cannot be defeated merely because the prosecution files the chargesheet prior to furnishing of bail and fulfil the conditions of bail of furnishing bonds, etc., so long as he furnishes the bail within the time stipulated by the Court. " 8. In fact the benefit of bail order already passed in favour of the petitioner could not be got enforced on account of non-functioning of the Courts at Ferozepur as the petitioner was not able to furnish his bail bonds/surety bonds for a period of three days without any fault on his part. 9. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the time taken at the instance of the petitioner for the purpose of furnishing his bail bonds/ surety bonds in pursuance to an order dated 27.08.2021 was wholly on account of the reasons beyond his control for which he cannot be put to any disadvantageous position. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and order passed by the Special Court, Ferozepur, is set aside with further direction to accept the bail bonds/surety bonds of the petitioner in pursuance to its previous order dated 27.08.2021.