Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Pankaj Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2638 of 2022
Decided On : 20-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, 452 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) – Terrorists And Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 - Section 20(4)(bb) – Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Section 36A (4) - Statutory Bail - Revisionist submitted that admittedly in present matter, revisionist is in custody in present case and none of offence are having punishment of more than seven years, therefore, as per section 167(2) Cr.P.C. within sixty days from date of arrest of revisionist, investigation must have been completed and charge-sheet must have been filed within sixty days but as, charge-sheet in present matter did not file, therefore, an indefeasible right to release revisionist on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. accrued, therefore, revisionist filed bail application before court concerned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but his bail application was wrongly dismissed by court below, therefore, order is illegal and liable to be set aside and revisionist should be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C – Held, As, in present case within stipulated period of sixty days, which was expiring charge-sheet did not file and before submission of charge-sheet revisionist applied for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. therefore in view of law laid down by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in case of Sanjay Dutt, three judges Bench in case of Bikramjit Singh and three judge Bench in case of M. Ravindran revisionist has to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C - Therefore, from above discussion, in my view, order is illegal and is liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - Order dated is hereby set-aside and revisionist is directed to be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C - Revision allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
2. The instant revision has been moved by the revisionist against the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 167 of 2022, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj by which, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail application moved by the revisionist under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts, which are relevant for the purpose of present revision is that FIR of the present case was lodged on 16.04.2022 against the revisionist and one another under Sections 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC at Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj. Pursuant to the FIR dated 16.04.2022 revisionist was arrested on 16.04.2022 and since then he is in custody in the present matter. As, the matter relates to Sections 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC and none of the offence is punishable for more than seven years and as charge-sheet did not submit in the court within sixty days from the date of arrest of revisionist, therefore, an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the revisionist on 17.06.2022 praying that as sixty days have already been lapsed since his arrest and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted, therefore, revisionist is entitled to be released on statutory bail provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but court below on same day i.e. 17.06.2022 dismissed his bail application moved under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Revisionist challenged the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the court below in the instant revision.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that admittedly in the present matter, revisionist is in custody in the present case since 16.04.2022 and none of the offence are having punishment of more than seven years, therefore, as per section 167(2) Cr.P.C. within sixty days from the date of arrest of revisionist, investigation must have been completed and charge-sheet must have been filed within sixty days i.e. latest by 15.06.2022 but as, till 17.06.2022, charge-sheet in the present matter did not file, therefore, on 17.06.2022 an indefeasible right to release the revisionist on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. accrued, therefore, revisionist on 17.06.2022 filed bail application before the court concerned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but his bail application was wrongly dismissed by the court below, therefore, order dated 17.06.2022 is illegal and liable to be set aside and revisionist should be released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the law is settled that if within stipulated period of time, charge-sheet has not been submitted and before submission of charge-sheet, if accused applied for bail then, he has to be released on bail by virtue of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt vs. State through C.B.I. Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410 and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the court below after placing the reliance in the case of Pragyna Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 10 SCC 445 dismissed the bail application of revisionist moved under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. therefore, committed an illegality of law as Pragyna Singh Thakur case (supra) has been held per incurium by three judge Bench of the Apex Court in case of Bikramjit Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that as revisionist has applied for bail even before filing of the charge-sheet, therefore, his bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be dismissed on th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to default bail under section 167 of the CrPC is enforceable only prior to the filing of the charge-sheet and does not survive or re....
(1) Default bail – Period of 90 days is stated to be counted when investigation for fresh offence(s) is started and not from date of lodging of FIR.(2) Default bail – Right to seek default/statutory ....
The right to default bail is an indefeasible right linked to Article 21 of the Constitution and is subject to the law and procedure laid down by the Legislature.
Point of law : The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filin....
Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is forfeited once a charge sheet is filed, and the right to default bail does not survive after such filing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
