Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
P.K. LOHRA, J.
Dharmchand S/o Sh. Ishwar Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CR. MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO. 1884 OF 2016
Decided On : 09-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Jain.
For the State : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit.
The filing of a charge-sheet within the stipulated period under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. precludes the accused from claiming default bail, even if there are discrepancies in the order-sheets maintained by the trial court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 167(2) - Default Bail - Filing of Charge-sheet within Stipulated Period - Interpretation and Application - Judicial Discipline in Maintaining Records - Exercise of Inherent Powers and Superintendence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of offenses under Sections 498A, 304B, and 120B IPC, challenged the orders of the trial court and the additional sessions judge denying him bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days, entitling him to bail. The State contended that the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had maintained two parallel proceedings, with conflicting order-sheets indicating that the final report was not filed on the dates mentioned in the impugned orders. However, the court also noted that the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period, as evidenced by the order-sheets overleaf the covering letter of the charge-sheet.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to the alleged delay in filing the charge-sheet? 2. Whether the trial court's maintenance of conflicting order-sheets constituted a violation of judicial discipline?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period, as evidenced by the order-sheets overleaf the covering letter of the charge-sheet. The court noted that the conflicting order-sheets maintained by the trial court were a result of inadvertence and did not warrant interference with the impugned orders. 2. The court expressed its disapproval of the trial court's conduct in maintaining conflicting order-sheets, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to prescribed norms and procedures.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, but directed the District & Sessions Judge to take necessary action to ensure that judicial discipline is maintained in the trial court.
1. Accused-petitioner has laid the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 Cr.P.C., ventilating his afflictions against impugned orders dated 28th of May 2016 and 8th of June 2016, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) and Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned Court below’) respectively, under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C.
2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Bhagirath Soni lodged an FIR at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner against petitioner and two others charging them for offences under Section 498A, 304-B and 120-B IPC. The FIR was registered on 20th of February 2016 bearing No. 80/2016 and considering seriousness of the offences, which were non-bailable, the accused-petitioner was apprehended and produced before learned trial Court on 28th of February 2016. The learned trial Court, thereafter, upon consideration of application of prosecution for remand, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody upto 8th of March 2016 which was extended from time to time. In that background, as per petitioner, when charge-sheet in the matter is not filed within 90 days in adherence of the mandatory provision contained in sub-sec.(2) proviso (a) (i) of Section 167 Cr.P.C, he made endeavour before the learned trial Court for enlarging him on bail. The learned trial Court considered the submissions of the accused and by its order dated 28th of May 2016 declined the prayer on the anvil of sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. as well as on merits. While adverting to merits of the case, the learned trial Court observed that petitioner is charged for a serious offence under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, it is not desirable to enlarge him on bail. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner by taking shelter of mandatory provision under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is also examined by the learned trial Court. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, for declining the said prayer learned trial Court observed that charge-sheet in the matter was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, i.e. on 26th of May 2016.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, petitioner made endeavour for seeking bail before the learned Court below by submitting an application under Section 167(2) read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Court below, by its order dated 8th of June 2016, while fully concurring with the learned trial Court, rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
4. With a view to substantiate his plea on the anvil of mandatory provision contained under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., it is averred in the petition that factum of submission of charge-sheet before the learned trial Court is not discernible from the order-sheets of the learned trial Court inasmuch as order-sheets dated 26th of May 2016 and 1st of June 2016 clearly and unequivocally indicate that result of the investigation is awaited. For substantiating his positive assertion, petitioner has also placed on record certified copy of order-sheets dated 26th of May 2016 and 1st of June 2016.
5. That apart, it is also submitted by the petitioner that certified copy of the final report, allegedly submitted before the learned trial Court on 26th of May 2016, nowhere reveals any endorsement of the Court that the same was presented on 26th of May 2016. Categorizing this sort of discrepancy ‘irreconcilable’, the petitioner has made an attempt to castigate the prosecution for manipulation and maneuvering to get the charge-sheet filed by antedating it in order to thwart right of the petitioner accrued under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. For assailing impugned orders, precisely, the same grounds are elaborated by the petitioner in the petition craving desired reliefs.
6. On behalf of respondent State, repl
