Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Deeg (District Bharatpur) in Sessions Case No.9/2013 whereby the learned trial Court refused to accept and attest the bail bonds offered by the petitioners in compliance of the orders dated 19.12.2012 and 20.12.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg (District Bharatpur) under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.397/2012 registered at Police Station Deeg (District Bharatpur) for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

2. The short question raised for consideration in this petition is “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-bond 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 or whether the right to be released on bail stands extinguished on submission of the charge-sheet.”

3. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No.397/2012 came to be registered against the petitioners on 15.6.2012 for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC at Police Station Deeg (District Bharatpur) and during the course of investigation accused-petitioner-Jahid @ Bulti was arrested on 3.9.2012 whereas the accused-petitioner-Shri Misru alias Misroop was arrested on 4.9.2012. It is an admitted fact that the charge-sheet could not be filed within the period of 90 days as provided under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of application filed by each of the petitioners the concerned Magistrate exercising its power under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. allowed the same vide orders dated 19.12.2012 and 20.12.2012 respectively. From petitioner-Shri Jahid personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and surety of the same amount was demanded, whereas from petitioner-Misru personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and surety of the same amount was demanded. It is an admitted fact that after investigation charge-sheet was filed 18.1.2013 upon which cognizance was taken and the case being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, it was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg (District Bharatpur) for trial. It is an admitted fact that the requisite bail bonds as ordered by the learned Magistrate were not filed by the petitioners before the charge-sheet was filed. On 5.2.2013 charges were framed against the petitioners and the trial commenced. In order to prove charges statements of as many as four prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix were recorded. At this stage of the proceedings on 3.7.2012, separate applications were filed by the petitioners praying therein that they are submitting the requisite bail bonds in compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by the Magistrate under proviso to Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the same may be attested and they may be released from custody. The learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties vide impugned order dated 3.7.2013 dismissed the aforesaid applications and refused to attest the offered bail bonds and release them on bail. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this petition.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the charge-sheet could not be filed within the prescribed period of 90 days an absolute and indefeasible right accrued to the petitioners to be released on compulsive bail under proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. and the petitioners exercising their right moved applications to grant benefit of bail to them before the charge-sheet was filed and the learned Magistrate rightly allowed their applications and ordered to release them on bail if they furnish the requisite bail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document