An accused person is entitled to be discharged if no charge-sheet is filed and no further extension of time is granted for filing the charge-sheet, and the Magistrate's failure to pass a decisive order and keeping the petitioner as an accused in custody without any extension of remand or discharge amounts to illegal detention.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 167(5) - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - NON-EXTENSION OF REMAND - ILLEGAL DETENTION - BAIL BOND CANCELLATION - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED IN THE JUDGMENT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested on 24-5-1975 for allegedly obtaining delivery of goods using a forged railway receipt. He was released on bond on 2-6-1975. An FIR was recorded against him on 6·10·1975, and he was discharged on 13-11-1975. However, he was immediately re-arrested by Inspector Tayde of the Railway C.I.D., Office, Poona. The investigation was transferred to the Detective Inspector Crime Branch, C.I.D. Nagpur, and several extensions were granted for completing the investigation. On 1-7-1977, the court ordered the police to submit a charge-sheet on 4-7-1977 and extended bail till then. On 4-7-1977, no charge-sheet was filed, no discharge was requested, and no extension of time was sought. The petitioner approached the High Court for anticipatory bail, which was not granted, but a rule was issued directing the State to respond.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be discharged since no charge-sheet was filed and no further extension of time was granted for filing the charge-sheet. The court found that the Magistrate's failure to pass a decisive order and keeping the petitioner as an accused in custody worked to his prejudice. The court also held that the bail bond executed by the petitioner had to be canceled and that he could not be re-arrested except by obtaining fresh orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in not passing a decisive order and keeping the petitioner as an accused in custody without any extension of remand or discharge. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be discharged in the absence of a charge-sheet being filed or an extension of time being granted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi and others, where the Supreme Court held that detention of a person in custody after the expiry of the remand order without any fresh order of remand is illegal custody. 2. The court held that the petitioner's continued obligation to present himself in court and fulfill the terms of the bail bond amounted to illegal detention in the absence of an extension of remand. 3. The court found that the Magistrate's failure to pass a decisive order and keeping the petitioner as an accused in custody worked to his prejudice.
Final Decision: The High Court made the rule absolute, discharged the petitioner, and canceled the bail bond executed by him in Crime No. 118/75 G. R. P., Kurla.

ORDER- This petition raises a question of some importance as to what· order should be passed when in a non-cognizable case the investigating agency has neither obtained an order for extension of time for investigation nor has filed any charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 24-5-1975 by the R. P. F. Kurla, on the allegation that the railway receipt on which he obtained delivery of certain goods was forged. He was released on bond on 2-6-1975 on certain conditions. On 6·10·1975, F. I. R. was recorded against him by G. L. O. Kurla. On 13-11-1975 he was discharged on the request made by R. P. F. Kurla. But as soon as the petitioner came out of Court he was arrested on 13-11-1975, by Inspector Tayde of the Railway C. I. D., Office, Poona. The proceedings continued under No. 118/75 of the G. R. P. Kurla. Although his bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate before whom he was produced, the Sessions Court at Bombay, had granted him bail on 20-11-1975. Consequent upon the order the petitioner executed a bail bond and he was attending the court on different dates as directed.

3. From time to time the Railway C. I. D. asked for extension for completing the investigation. It appears that in the meanwhile investigation was handed over to the Detective Inspector Crime Branch, C. I. D. Nagpur. Further extentions were asked for and granted but on 1-7-1977 the following order was passed "Police to submit charge-sheet on 4-7-1977. Bail extended till then."

4. On 4-7-1977, although one Kshirsagar from the office of the Detective, Inspector, C.I.D., Nagpur, remained present in the Court of the Metropolitan. Magistrate, he did not file a charge sheet nor did he make any application for the discharge of the petitioner, nor did he apply for extension of time. Thus, there does not exist any order for extension of bail or cancellation of bail-bond. No order was passed by the learned. Magistrate. Instead the matter was., allowed to remain at that stage hanging loosely. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail on the submission that in spite of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in spite of the petitioner's readiness to stand his trial, the petitioner may be rearrested afresh and put to inconvenience.

5. Since the petitioner was already granted bail and he was reporting to the Magistrate on different dates, this was not taken as a fit case to entertain a prayer for anticipatory bail. Instead there was an infirmity when the learned Magistrate did not pass any decisive order. Hence rule was issued directing the State to put in say.

6. The State has not filed any reply. But Mr. Hudlikar for the State, has informed the Court that the petitioner was on bail in Crime No. 118/75 of G. R. P. Kurla and that he is not required to be arrested for any other offence on the subject-matter of C. R. No. 118/75. He confirms the position that on 4-7-1977 no extension was asked for, no charge-sheet was filed and no discharge was asked for.

7. It seems, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to pass an order of discharge and to cancel the bail-bond executed by the petitioner when no charge-sheet was filed and no further extension of time for filing the chargesheet was granted. Not passing any order and keeping the petitioner as accused in the custody works to his prejudice.

8. Hence Rule is made absolute. The petitioner is discharged. Bailbond executed by him in Crime No. 118/75 G. R. P. Kurla, is cancelled.

9. The matter was kept for rehearing before the transcription of the dictated judgment as the correctness of the order for discharge was doubted.

10. It is apparent that no further remand was granted and as such there was no further date on which the petitioner was required to attend the Court. There is no express order made by the Magistrate stopping further investigation but obviously no further date for filing the charge- s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document