IMPORTANT POINT
The right of the petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing bond shall continue to exist and remain enforceable if the petitioner desires to submit bail bond, and subsequent filing of charge sheet will not extinguish such indefeasible right.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2.

2. In this petition, under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, namely Umar Faruque has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 27.02.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 56/2021. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 27.02.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for filing bail bond as per order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

“On the basis of an FIR lodged by S.I. Trilochan Das of Gauripur P.S. with the O/C Dhubri P.S. on 16.05.2021, the present petitioner, along with two other accused namely, Amir Ali, Sah Alam Seikh was arrested by police and forwarded to jail hazoot. The essence of allegation against them is that they were dealing with the business of fake Indian Currency Notes and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ of suspected fake Indian Currency Notes were recovered from the house premises of Amir Ali. Upon the said FIR the O/C Dhubri Police Station has registered a case being Dhubri P.S. Case No. 796/2021 and got the investigation carried out. But, within the stipulated period of 90 days the I.O. of the case had failed to file charge sheet and therefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, vide order dated 16.08.2021, granted the present petitioner default bail and allowed him to go on bail of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount. But, the petitioner had failed to file bail bond for which he has been languishing in jail hazoot. In the meantime, the I.O. had completed investigation and submitted charge sheet being charge sheet No. 732/2021 against the petitioner under sections 120-B/489-A/489-C read with section 14-A of the Foreigners Act. Upon the said FIR the learned court below had taken cognizance of the offences, and upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri had framed charge against him under sections 120-B/489-A/489-B/489-C IPC read with section 14-A(a)(b)/14(c) of the Foreigners Act and examined several witnesses. Thereafter, on 27.02.2023, one Motiyar Rahman had filed a petition to accept bail bond in respect of the present petitioner. But, the learned court below had dismissed the petition.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this present petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C. and contended to set aside the impugned order on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the petitioner was granted default bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri on the ground of failing to file charge sheet by the I.O. within stipulated period, but, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri had misinterpreted the provision of law and rejected the petition;

(ii) That, before filing of the charge sheet the petitioner could not furnish his bail bond but, as the petitioner was granted default bail the said order would remain in force and he can file bail bond at any point of time and no fresh order is necessary and as such the impugned order failed to withstand legal scrutiny;

5. Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides reiterating the points mentioned herein above, submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri had misinterpreted the provision of law. Mr. Islam further submits that the petitioner was granted the privilege of default bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, the same would remain in force and subsequent filing of charge sheet would not extinguish the indefeasible right of the petitioner. And as there exist an order granting bail to the petitioner, his right to file bail bond still exist and on such count no fresh order is necessary and therefore, it is contended to all