HEMANT GUPTA, J.:–Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura on 3rd October, 2015 wherein, the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura on 13th of August, 2015 claiming compulsive bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) remained unsuccessful.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was arrested on 4th of May, 2015 in Shankarpur Police Station Case No.62 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code on 13th August, 2015 in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer has failed to submit charge-sheet within stipulated period of 90 days. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order on such application on 13th August, 2015:—

“A petition on behalf of accused (in custody since 04.05.15) Upendra Yadav @ Munsi Yadav U/S 167(2) of Cr. P.C. filed today along with attendance after giving its copy to the learned DPO, Madhepura along with Bail Bond on behalf of the said accused petitioner and taken up for hearing when pressed.

It is argued that the petitioner has been into judicial custody on dated 04.05.2015 and after lapse of stipulated period of 90 days the investigation officer has failed to submit charge sheet against the petitioner till today i.e. 13.08.2015. That, it is about 100th days in judicial custody of the petitioner and he has statutory right of bail, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail under the mandatory provision U/S 167(2) of Cr. P.C.

Heard and perused the case record from which it appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.05.2015. Since the bail application has been filed U/S 167(2) of the Cr. P.C., the G. R. Clerk is directed to submit report at once. Put after receipt of the report.

Later on 13.08.2015

Report of the G. R. Clerk as well as O/C of this Court has been received which is mentioned on the bail application itself. The G. R. Clerk has reported that he is authorized to receive the F.I.R only. The office clerk of this Court has reported that the charge sheet and the original case diary has been received in the office at 03:15 P.M. today against the accused petitioner and other co-accused persons submitted by the I.O. of this case U/S 341,342,323,324,326,307/34 of I.P.C. Seen. The I/O has submitted the charge sheet no.75/15 dtd.31.7.2015 U/s 341,342,323,324,326,307/34 of I.P.C. against the named accused (1) Upendra Yadav @ Nunuya @ Munsi Yadav (2) Santosh Yadav (3) Rajendra Yadav (4) Umesh Yadav (5) Raghuni Yadav, (6) Yogendra Yadav, (7) Baso Yadav (8) Kamro Yadav @ Kamleshwari Yadav and (9) Shivam Yadav and (10) Mahendra Yadav. From perusal of case record it transpires that the date fixed is 24.8.15 in this case. Hence, put up on the fixed date for hearing on the point of cognizance.

So far as the prayer for bail U/s 167(2) Cr. P.C. of the accused (in custody) petitioner Upendra Yadav @ Munsi Yadav is concerned, since the charge sheet and case diary has been submitted in this case against the accused petitioner aforementioned, at 15:15 hours today the petitioner accused does not deserve bail U/S 167(2) Cr. P.C., therefore, the bail petition U/S 167(2) Cr. P.C. accordingly stands rejected and the bail bond furnished on his behalf is not accepted.”

3. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate declined the application for bail for the reason that charge-sheet was filed on the same day at about 15.15 hours as per the General Register Clerk (for short, ‘G.R. Clerk’). It is the said order which was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge through a revision petition, which was dismissed on 3rd October, 2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Supreme Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document