GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Nur Alam @ Md. Noor Alom —Petitioner
versus
State of Assam rep. by the PP —Respondent
Bail Appln. 339 of 2022
Decided on 10.6.2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 439, 167(2) and 173(8) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B/302/34 – Bail/Default bail – Right to bail under proviso (a) of Section 167 (2), is absolute if investigating agency fails to file charge-sheet before expiry of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be – It is duty of Court to release accused on bail in such compulsive legal situation – Statutory period of detention shall be reckoned from date of accused’s remand in first instance – Final report of police under Section 173(2) containing statutory details is complete when it is accompanied with all documents and statements of witnesses as per requirement of Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. – Continuation of further investigation is permissible, which can be made even at any stage of trial of case – Police enjoy statutory right to hold further investigation as often as necessary under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. when fresh evidence or information comes to light – In present case, accused persons are in judicial custody for 246 days till date – After filing of charge-sheet, case is at appearance stage of their co-accused who is absconding from time of investigation and as such, there is no possibility of early committal of case to Sessions Court for trial – Bail granted – Breach of any of conditions shall render cancellation of bail in accordance with law. (Paras 15, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Bail Petition allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State respondent and Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. By this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), the accused-petitioner, namely Nur Alam @ Md. Noor Alom has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 607/2021 under Sections 120B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).
3. The scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary, as called for, is placed before the Court. Perused.
4. Mr. A. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submitted that the investigating officer has submitted a part charge-sheet in the case declaring one of the accused Amir Khan as absconder stating that the investigation would continue till he is apprehended and after completion of further investigation, an additional police report/charge-sheet would be submitted under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Islam further submitted that as the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the accused petitioner within the statutory period of 90(ninety) days and cognizance of the offences is yet to be taken by the learned Court below for having initiated process for appearance of co-accused Amir Khan, the continuation of detention of the accused petitioner for an indefinite period without trial is contrary to law and justice. Mr. Islam vehemently submitted that his continuation of detention in judicial custody is per se illegal inasmuch as after filing of the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. remand of the accused should be governed by either Section 209 or 309 of the Cr.P.C., which again come into play only after taking cognizance of the offence. Mr. Islam submitted that the accused has been detained beyond the statutory period of 90 days even without taking cognizance of the alleged offences. Therefore, Mr. Islam submitted that subject to any condition, the bail prayer of the accused petitioner may be accepted.
5. Vehemently opposing the bail application, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that in fact, final charge-sheet has been submitted against the present accused and two others and part charge-sheet against one Amir Khan, who is shown as absconder under Sections 120B/302/34 of the IPC on 04.01.2022. Mr. Gogoi further submitted that the police arrested the accused on 07.10.2021, on which date itself, the learned Magistrate remanded him in police custody and thus, computing from the date of first remand, the charge-sheet was submitted on 04.01.2022, that is, on the 89th day, which was within the prescribed period of 90 days under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, Mr. Gogoi submitted that the accused petitioner is not entitled to default bail, but his case is to be considered on merit only.
6. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the informant, submitted that as the charge-sheet in the case has been submitted within the prescribed period of 90 days and the case being pending at the committal stage and further, considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, the accused petitioner may not be released on bail. In support of his contentions Mr. Mahajan relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Ors., reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42; Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi and Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 153 and the orders passed by this Court in AB No.482/2022; Bail Appln.No.176/2019; Bail Appln.2718/2019 and Bail Appln.229/2022.
7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.10.2021, the informant Raj Kumar Ray lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge, Bhangagarh P.S., alleging, inter-alia, that in the evening of 06.10.2021, someone killed his nephew, namely Bipul Ray near Nemcare Hospital. Upon
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.