Back
2006 Supreme(HP) 194
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H.KAPADIA
BHUPINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JARNAIL SINGH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2006(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 5850 of 2005)
Decided On : 07/13/2006
For the Appellants: :Dinesh Kumar Garg and Bheem Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: :Sudhir Walia, Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh and Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period for filing the challan in a case involving an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, is 90 days, and the completeness of the challan within the stipulated period is crucial.
Headnote:
Challan - Bail Cancellation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2)(a) - Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged the order cancelling their bail, which was granted in a case involving the murder of the deceased. The dispute revolved around the period for filing the challan and the completeness of the challan within the stipulated period under Section 167(2)(a).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the period for filing the challan was 90 days and not 60 days, setting aside the order granting bail to the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the period for filing the challan in a case involving an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, is 90 days or 60 days. 2. Whether the mere filing of the challan without relevant documents satisfies the requirement of filing the challan within the stipulated period under Section 167(2)(a).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the period for filing the challan in a case involving an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, is 90 days. The Court also emphasized that the completeness of the challan within the stipulated period is essential, and the relevant documents must be filed along with the report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to surrender forthwith to custody, with the option to move for bail, which would be considered in its own perspective.
Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.
3. Factual background in a nutshell is as under :- On 16.4.2003 appellant No. 1-Bhupinder Singh was married to Smt. Kamaljit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). On 2.8.2004 she was found dead. On the allegation that the appellants had committed murder of the deceased, First Information Report (in short the FIR) was lodged by the respondent-Jarnail Singh and on that basis appellants 1 and 2 (Bhupinder Singh and Balwinder) were arrested on 5.8.2004. Subsequently on 7.8.2004 appellant No. 3 (Kanwaljit Kaur) was arrested. Prayer for bail was made before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Batala on 4.11.2004 who refused to grant bail to the appellants. Their stand before the Court in essence was that since challan was not filed in time, they were entitled to bail in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr. P. C). Learned Magistrate rejected the application stating that the challan was presented in Court prior to the completion of 90 days and, therefore, it was presented within the prescribed period. The order was challenged before learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who granted bail relying on certain decisions of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court (State v. B.B. Singh, 2005(1) Chand LR 135; Amer v. State of Karnataka, 2005(1) Rec Cri 107 and Nadeem Ahmed v. State, 2004 Cr.LJ 4798 holding that in relation to Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) period of 60 days of remand would be applicable and not 90 days for the purpose of Section 167(2)(a)(ii). Questioning correctness of the said decision a revision-petition was filed before the High Court by the complainant-respondent No.
1. The High Court referring to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr. P. C. held that the period during which the challan has to be filed is 90 days and not 60 days as held by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the order granting bail to the appellants was set aside.
4. According to learned Counsel for the appellant learned Sessions Judge was correct in his view and the High Court has erred in holding that the period is 90 days and not 60 days. It was further submitted that though it was the stand of the State that the challan was filed within a period of 60 days it is contrary to the materials on record. The challan which had been filed was incomplete and in fact requisite documents did not accompany it.
5. Per contra learned Counsel for the complainant and State of Punjab submitted that the view taken by the High Court is correct.
6. It reply to this stand about the defective challan learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the challan was in fact held, some documents have filed later on, and that did not make the challan, filed within 60 days, incomplete.
7. The points raised needs careful consideration.
8. Section 304-B, I.P.C., and Section 167(2)(a), Cr.P.C. read as follows :- "304-B (IPC) - Dowry Death (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise that under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. "167. Cr.P.C. : Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty f
