JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Criminal Application No. 1600 of 2001 under section 482, read with section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code, is directed against the order, dated 18-9-2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Risod, as well as the order, dated 17-10-2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, whereby the application moved by the applicants for grant of bail under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the order of rejection came to be confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

3. Mr. Mardikar, learned Counsel for the applicants, contended that the present applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Pooja, who was alleged to have committed suicide by jumping into a well. The applicants came to be arrested on 16-7-2001. Offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code, i.e., abetment of suicide, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable for fine. The learned Counsel contended that in view of section 167(2)(a)(ii), Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate is only authorized to detain the applicants in the custody of police only till expiry of sixty days, and not beyond sixty days as contemplated under the above referred provisions. Mr. Mardikar states that in the instant case, the applicants came to be arrested on 16-7-2001 and sixty days from the date of arrest were over on 14-9-2001 and, therefore, on 15-9-2001, the applicants moved an application for grant of bail in view of section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code.

4. As far as the offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, it is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the controversy in issue, since the punishment, which is provided for the offence punishable under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is only upto three years.

5. Mr. Mardikar contended that the controversy is concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Rajeev Chaudhary v. State of Delhi)1, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2369. It is contended that though this authority was referred by the applicants before the courts below, the same has not been properly considered by the respective courts, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the applicants. The learned Counsel contended that the applicants, for the reasons stated hereinabove and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment, are entitled to be released on bail under section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that the offence, in question, i.e., under section 306, Indian Penal Code, is punishable with either description of term which may extend to ten years. It is, therefore, contended that in a given set of circumstances if the prosecution succeeds in proving the offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code, the applicants may be punished with an imprisonment which may be upto ten years and, therefore, the controversy, in question, would fall within section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the time to file charge-sheet in such a situation is of ninety days from the date of arrest and the same is filed within ninety days in the present case. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the interpretation arrived at by the Courts below is just and proper and sustainable in law.

7. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel, perused the orders passed by the courts below and the judgment of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove as well as provisions of section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code.

8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the offences, which are registered against the present applicants, are under sections 306 and 498-A, read with section 34,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document