The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the expression 'offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years' in Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. and its applicability to the offence under Section 467 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. - (The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.05.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby order dated 03.04.2020 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh granting default bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.689 dated 15.08.2018 registered under Sections 193, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC) in Police Station Assandh, District Karnal was set aside.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that complainant-Ramphal filed complaint before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh regarding filing of forged documents by the accused in their defence evidence in criminal cases mentioned therein and his criminal intimidation by the accused on24.09.2017 at about 9 a.m. when he was going towards Bus Stand, Kurlan. In compliance with order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the above-said complaint, the above-said FIR was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2020. The petitioner filed application for grant of default bail on the ground that challan has not been filed within the prescribed period of sixty days in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. which was contested on the ground that due to offence under Section 467 of the Cr.P.C. being punishable with life imprisonment, challan could be filed within the prescribed period of ninety days under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. which had not expired. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate allowed the application vide order dated 03.04.2020. State of Haryana filed revision petition before learned Sessions Judge, Karnal which was allowed vide impugned order dated 14.05.2020. Vide order dated 14.05.2020, learned Sessions Judge, Karnal held that due to maximum sentence imposable under Section 467 of the IPC being life imprisonment, the accused could be detained in custody for the period of ninety days without submission of charge-sheet and accordingly remanded the case to learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass fresh order keeping in mind the observations made by him.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside of the impugned order dated 14.05.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal.

4. The petition has been opposed by learned State Counsel in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Gajender Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assandh in the Registry which is taken on record.

5. I have heard arguments addressed by Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ranvir Singh Arya, learned State Counsel and have gone through the relevant record.

6. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that no offence under Section 467 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner on a bare perusal of the FIR. Unless a prima facie case under Section 467 of the IPC was found to have been made out against the petitioner, the rigors ancillary thereto could not be applied while considering the question of cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on the revision petition filed by the respondent-State. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 20.01.2020 and was granted default bail vide order dated 03.04.2020 on the ground of not filing of challan within the prescribed period of sixty days under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. Order dated 03.04.2020 has been wrongly set aside by learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 14.05.2020. The expression "not less than ten years" used in Section 167(2)(a)(i) was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State of (NCI) Delhi : 2001 (5