SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh – Appellant
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2015
Decided on 20-02-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
For computing the period of 90 days u/s 167(2), CrPC the day of remand of the accused to judicial custody should be excluded, and the day of filing of challan should be included.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Bail on failure to file charge sheet – Appellant surrendered before the Magistrate on 5.7.2013 – Computation of 90 days u/s 167(2) – The day of remand of the accused to judicial custody should be excluded, and the day of filing of challan should be included – Charge sheet filed on 3.10.2013 – Thus charge sheet was filed within time – No error in impugned orders. (Para 12)

       1995 Supp (3) SCC 221 – Relied upon

       1986 (3) Crimes 577; 1983 (2) Crimes 254 (Short Note); 1985 CRLJ 939 (Orissa); (1986) 3 SCC 141 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

        The appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur on 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime case relating to offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act.

        He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended under Section 167 of the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the appellant moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code for his release on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed. On the same day, i.e., 3.10.2013, it was endorsed in the order sheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that as per report of the clerk of the Court, charge sheet has already been received, as such, the bail application moved under Section 167(2) of the Code was rejected by the Magistrate on the very day and further remand order was passed under Section 209 of the Code. Endorsement “seen” was also made by the Magistrate on 3.10.2013 on the charge-sheet.

        The applicant moved bail application before the Sessions Judge seeking bail on the ground that he was entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. He further pleaded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in law in rejecting his bail application on said ground. However, the In-charge Sessions Judge also opined that since the charge sheet had already been submitted, the appellant was not entitled to bail on the ground that charge-sheet was not received within time.

        Appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh moved a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court praying that order passed by the Sessions Judge, as above, and the one passed by the Magistrate be quashed.

        The High Court also took the view that since the charge sheet had already been filed within the period of ninety days, as such, it did not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no error in impugned judgment.

        Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J. —This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 48019 of 2013 whereby said Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “the Code”) and declined to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, In-charge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Bail Petition No. 542 of 2013, and upheld the refusal to release the appellant on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur on 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime No. 89 of 2013, registered at Police Station, Chainpur, relating to offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 19.7.2013. His remand was extended under Section 167 of the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the appellant moved an application under Section 167(2) of the Code for his release on the ground that the charge sheet has not been filed. On the same day, i.e., 3.10.2013, it was endorsed in the order sheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that as per report of the clerk of the Court, charge sheet has already been received, as such, the bail application moved under Section 167(2) of the Code was rejected by the Magistrate on the very day and further remand order was passed under Section 209 of the Code. Endorsement “seen” was also made by the Magistrate on 3.10.2013 on the charge-sheet.

3. On 22.10.2013, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. The applicant moved bail application No. 542 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua seeking bail on the ground that he was entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. He further pleaded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in law in rejecting his bail application on said ground. However, the In-charge Sessions Judge, who disposed of the above bail application, also opined that since the charge sheet had already been submitted, as such, the appellant was not entitled to bail on the ground that charge-sheet was not received within time.

4. On this, appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh appears to have moved a petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, praying that order passed by the Sessions Judge, as above, and the one passed by the Magistrate be quashed. But the High Court also took the view that since the charge sheet had already been filed within the period of ninety days, as such, it did not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record of the case.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code reads as under: -

“167(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that-

(a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding-

(i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top