Back
2007 Supreme(Chh) 313
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
GYAN CHAND AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Petition 31 Of 2007
Decided On : MAY 7, 2007
Sanjay K.Agrawal, Shailendra Dubey
Headnote:Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973—Section 167(2)—Compulsive bail—Accused failed to comply the order by furnishing bail bond with surety—Charge sheet filed by prosecution in meanwhile—Whether accused could be released on such bail on his furnishing bail bond on strength of the earlier order? No.
Held: In the present case, no doubt, the indefeasible right had accrued in favour of the petitioner when the investigation was not completed and the charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated period and for this reason, the Magistrate (CBI) passed an order of compulsive bail on 10.3.2006 under the proviso to Section167(2) Cr. P.C. But for the reason best known to the petitioner, the bail bond so directed to be furnished by the order of Magistrate were not furnished by the petitioner and ultimately they did not furnish it upto 19.12.2006 and after a lapse of such a long period of about more than 9 months, the petitioner furnished bail bond on 19.12.2006, but by that time the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was already filed on 30.3.2006. Therefore, certainly the indefeasible right accrued in favour of the petitioner on account of not filing of the charge-sheet within the statutory period, after not filing of the bail bond as per the directions of the Magistrate dated 10.3.2006, stand extinguished on 30.6.2006. The Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for releasing him on compulsive bail on the strength of the order dated 10.3.2006 by accepting the bail bond in the changed scenario on 19.12.2006 as the aforesaid right had extinguished by that time and the petitioner was rightly not released on the strength of the earlier order passed under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. There appears to be no illegality in the orders passed by the two Courts below. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. (Para 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
( 1 )
(1) "whether a person, who has been granted an order of compulsive bail under Section 167 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate and who did not furnish bail bound for a long time pursuant to the order and a charge sheet was filed, in the meanwhile, can be subsequently released on such bail on his furnishing bail-bond on the strength of the earlier order, is a short question raised for consideration in this petition.
( 2 ) THE brief facts are that this petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 76 of 2004 registered at Police Station, bhilaibhatti for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467, 468, 469 and 471 of the. P. C. Firstly, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the said crime which was dismissed by the High Court on 18th of August, 2004 and the matter was directed to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short "cbi" ). Consequently, the matter was transferred to the. , where it was registered as Crime No. R. C. 10 (A)/04/cbi/jabalpur, (Case Diary No. 44 ). The petitioner was arrested in the said crime Number. He made an application before this Court vide M. Cr. C. No. 3266/ 2005 for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 16. 2. 2006. Thereafter, since the prosecution could not file a charge sheet in time, an application under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. was filed by the petitioner. This application came up for hearing before the Special Magistrate (CBI) on 10. 3. 2006, who allowed the same and passed an order under Section 167 (2) directing the petitioner to furnish two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each with a personal bond in sum of Rs. 1 lakh (one lakh) for his release on compulsive bail. It is important to mention this fact here that the petitioner did not comply with the bail order granted by the Magistrate (CBI) as he did not furnish bail-bond pursuant to the said order, because according to the petitioner, in the meanwhile, he was also arrested in Crime No. 77/2004 registered at police Station Bhilaibhatti, Distt. Durg for commission of another offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 of ipc. , for which a bail application (M. Cr. C. No. 2528/2006) was filed before the High court. The said bail application, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 77/2004 was dismissed by the High Court on 21. 11. 2006. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner moved a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court bearing special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6485/2006 (Gyan Chandra Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh ). The aforesaid S. L. P. came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 15. 12. 2006, where it was directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- and a personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he has furnished bail bond in Crime No. 77/2004 and necessary orders were passed in that case, however, he could not be released from jail as he was also required in earlier Crime No. 76/2004 (Changed No. R. C. 10 (A)/04/cbi/ jabalpur, (Case Diary No. 44. CBI) because he had not furnished bail-bond pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate (CBI) under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. in the said case.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER on 19. 12. 2006 the petitioner furnished bail bond pursuant to the order of the Magistrate dt. 10. 3. 2006 which was not accepted by the Magistrate on the ground that by that time on 30. 3. 2006, the cbi has already filed a charge sheet in the matter and now after filing of the charge sheet as aforementioned, the petitioner could not be released in pursuance of the order dt. 10. 3. 2006 passed under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C.
( 5 ) THE order passed by the Magistrate (CBI) was challenged before the Special judge (CBI), Raipur in Criminal Revision no. 2/2007. The learned Special Judge dismissed th
