Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 2383
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla, J.
Dr.Ravdeep Kaur
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26593 of 2006,
Decided On : MAY 31, 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of a complete challan within the specified period is crucial for determining the right to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Bail - Murder Case - IPC 302/34, 109, 115, 120-B - Section 167, 173 of Cr.P.C. - [IPC 302/34, 109, 115, 120-B] - [Section 167, 173 of Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 167 and 173 of the Cr.P.C. and their application in the context of filing a complete challan within 90 days. The court emphasized that the mere absence of the Forensic Science Laboratory's report would not render the challan incomplete and that the filing of a supplementary challan would not detract from the legality of the initial challan. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a murder case where the prosecution failed to file a complete challan within 90 days as required under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the incomplete challan entitled her to be released on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the challan filed within 90 days was legal and valid, and the right to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was not available to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the incomplete challan entitled the petitioner to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere absence of the Forensic Science Laboratory's report would not render the challan incomplete and that the filing of a supplementary challan would not detract from the legality of the initial challan.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 321, dated 14.10.2005, registered under Sections 302/34, 109, 115, 120-B of the IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala.
2. A brief background, that has led to the filing of the present petition, would be appropriate.
3. The murder of Shri Vijay Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Labour Court, Chandigarh, led to the lodging of the aforementioned FIR. The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood with injuries on his face, neck, chest, legs and head. He was taken to Amar Hospital by the first informant, where he was declared dead. Upon investigation, the petitioner, was cited as one of the accused and arrested on 18.10.2005. She was produced before the Magistrate on 19.10.2005 and was remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody. The prosecution filed a report/challan, under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 21.12.2005, a second report/challan on 21.2.2006 and thereafter, vide application dated 22.3.2006, prayed that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory be appended along with the challan already submitted.
4. The petitioner filed an application on 22.3.2006, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, praying for grant of regular bail on the plea that as a complete challan had not been presented, within the period of 90 days, as envisaged under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., an indefeasible right, to be released on bail, had accrued. Vide order dated 24.4.2006, the said application was dismissed.
5. The sole ground, upon which this prayer for bail is based, is the alleged inability of the prosecution to file a complete challan within 90 days, thus, conferring an indefeasible right upon the petitioner, to be released on bail. Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the challan was presented on 21.12.2005 i.e. within 90 days, it was incomplete and, therefore, no challan, in terms of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The period of 90 days expired on 16.1.2006, on which date an indefeasible right, to be released on bail, accrued to the petitioner. It is further argued that a perusal of the challan, dated 21.12.2005, reveals that it was incomplete, as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, with respect to the petitioners handwriting, had not been received. The second challan, dated 21.2.2006 states that as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been received, it would be filed later. It further states that if other evidence comes to light, it would also be filed, under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the aforementioned facts, it is contended that as the report, under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was incomplete, a right to be released on bail, accrued to the petitioner, for failure of the prosecution to conclude investigation, within a period of 90 days, as required under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is further argued that filing of an incomplete challan is not permissible, and cannot take away the right of an accused to be released on bail, for failure of the prosecution to conclude investigation, within a period of 90 days.
6. For the above propositions, reliance is placed upon Surinder Joshi v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 901 (P&H) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 505 (P&H); Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 171; Furtado v. C.B.I., 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 19 and Matchumari China Venkatareddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 Criminal Law Journal 257.
7. Counsel for the State of Punjab, as also counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, vehemently contend that the petitioner conspired with her co- accused, to murder Shri Vijay Singh. The challan filed on 21.12.2005, was a complete challan. The second challan merely states that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been received and would, therefore, be filed as and when it becomes available. A r
