Point of Law: Wrong nomenclature or erroneous citation of a provision of law cannot debar a party from having its application considered by the Court if it is otherwise legally maintainable.

ORDER

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - The present application has been filed by the State seeking recall of order dated 18.11.2021 passed in the above CRLMC mainly on the ground that such order was obtained by the accused-petitioners by misleading the Court.

2. The aforementioned CRLMC was filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the orders dated 06.09.2020/08.09.2020, 02.03.2021 and 03.05.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in T.R. Case No. 94 of 2020. It was contended by the petitioners that they were arrested in connection with Mathili P.S. Case No. 125 of 2020 on 06.09.2020 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day and as such, the stipulated period of 180 days for completion of investigation was due to expire on 03.03.2021. Learned Special Judge acting on a petition filed by the I.O. and the Special P.P. on 02.03.2021 extended the said period by 60 days. Accordingly, the extended period was due to expire on 01.05.2021. On the said date, the accused persons were neither produced before the learned Special Judge nor their indefeasible right to be released on default bail was informed to them, even though charge sheet had not been filed. Charge sheet was submitted two days later, i.e., on 03.05.2021, which was accepted and the petitioners were further remanded ignoring thereby their indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. This Court considering the averments made in the CRLMC petition and submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as also taking into consideration the petition filed by the I.O. seeking extension of time to submit charge sheet, wherein the date of expiry of 180 days was mentioned as 03.03.2021, held that the extended period was due to expire on 01.05.2021 and since the accused persons were not produced before the Court nor they were informed of their right of being released on bail despite non-submission of charge sheet, allowed the application granting liberty to the petitioners to move the trial court for bail with further direction that they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial court including the condition that they shall personally appear before the trial Court on each date of Pposting of the case without fail.

4. In the instant LA., the State has taken the stand that the accused persons were remanded on 07.09.2020 and thereby, 180 days was due to expire on 06.03.2021 and not 03.03.2021. The I.O. prayed for extension of time by filing a petition on 27.02.2021, which was allowed on 02.03.2021 for a period of 60 days, which was due to expire on 05.05.2021. Charge sheet was submitted on 03.05.2021. On such basis, it is alleged that the accused persons deliberately misrepresented facts to mislead the Court to obtain the order in their favour and therefore, the said order should be recalled.

5. The accused petitioners have not filed any written objection to the LA. but preferred to make oral arguments through their counsel.

6. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners in the CRLMC.

7. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has argued that the averments contained in the CRLMC petition are product of misrepresentation of facts, inasmuch as, it is stated that the accused persons were arrested on 06.09.2020 but were produced on 08.09.2020 and accordingly, 180 days period was due to expire on 03.03.2021. Taking the same as the period of completion of 180-day period, the extended period has been mentioned as 01.05.2021 and since charge sheet was submitted on 03.05.2021, the same is portrayed as submission after expiry of two days. Mr. Mishra further draws attention of the Court to the date chart filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, which is on record, wherein the above facts have been clearly noted. According to Mr. Mishra, the petition for extension of time was filed and allowed before expiry of the 180