JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. 

1. The petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure P-15) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nangal in case FIR No.0030 dated 22.03.2023 under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') (Section 427 of the IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar whereby application filed by them for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The case as set up by the prosecution may be summed up as thus: On 22.03.2023, at about 11:30 P.M., a phone call was received by the complainant that Mandeep Singh @ Bhoda and 7-8 other persons after entering the land under his ownership, were hurling abuses at him; on receipt of the phone call, he along with his driver Anil, Deepak Kumar and chowkidar Bahadar Singh, went to the spot in his vehicle, where Mandeep Singh @ Bhoda (petitioner No.2) along with Narinder Kumar @ Nindi (petitioner No.1), armed with dandas were already present along with 7-8 other persons. Petitioner No.2 on seeing the complainant, collided his vehicle with the vehicle of the complainant. When the complainant party tried to alight from the vehicle, petitioner No.2 again hit the complainant's driver, Anil (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), with his vehicle as a result of which the deceased fell down. Petitioner No.2 gave a danda blow to the deceased on his head and petitioner No.1 also inflicted injuries to the deceased. The complainant in view of the attack by the accused party, managed to run to his safety. Later, he learnt that his driver Anil Kumar i.e. the deceased, had died on account of the injuries inflicted by the petitioners.

3. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners:-

3(i). That they were arrested in the case in hand on 22.03.2023; challan under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. was presented on 20.06.2023 which, however, was an incomplete challan since neither the DNA report nor the viscera report nor any FSL report along with other relevant documents were annexed with it.

3(ii). That in fact the petitioners had been falsely implicated and death of the deceased was caused in a motor vehicular accident by the complainant himself; it was, however, being given the colour of homicide; there was documentary evidence in the form of a photograph which showed that it was the petitioners who had taken the deceased to the hospital after he sustained injuries in the motor vehicular accident.

3(iii). That in the aforementioned background all the relevant scientific evidence including the FSL report etc. was required to be annexed along with the challan. In absence thereof, there was no cogent material on record to even prima facie make out any case against the petitioners, much less for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

3(iv). That subsequently FSL report etc. had been received which also corroborated the false implication and innocence of the petitioners as no blood on the weapon of offence (sticks) was found which clearly pointed to the deceased having succumbed to injuries received by him in a motor vehicular accident.

3(v). That a piecemeal challan had been hurriedly and intentionally presented by the investigating agency on 20.06.2023, to circumvent the right of the petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the statutory period of 90 days was to expire on 20.06.2023.

4. Submissions made by learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant:-

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while vehemently controverting and opposing the submissions made by the counsel opposite, have contended as under:-

4(i). That on 20.06.2023, when the petitioners filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. they were not even entitled to the said concession.

4(ii). That it was a matter of record that the petitioners were remanded to police custody on 23.03.2023; the