JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Dileep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri S.S. Rajawat Advocate and Sri Saksham Agarwal, Advocates, who have also addressed this Court on the question of law involved in this case.

2. The instant Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14 A(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1989') to assail the order dated 10.09.2021 passed by learned Special / A.D.J., S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application under Section 167 of Code for default bail read with Rule 7(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1995') dated 26.08.2021 in Crime No.566/2021, under Sections 304, 326, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. The only short question, which fell for consideration, is whether the period provided for completion of investigation relating to offence(s) under Act, 1989 shall be governed by the Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1995 and in the event of non-submission of police report under Section 173(2) of Code within 60 days as provided in Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1995, irrespective of nature of offence(s) and punishment provided therefor, an accused/appellant shall be entitled to be released on default bail as provided in Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') ?

4. Brief facts leading to this criminal appeal are that a first information report bearing Case Crime No.0566 of 2021 came to be lodged against four accused persons including the present appellants. The appellants were arrested on 26.06.2021 and were produced before the learned Court concerned on the same day. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody and were sent to jail. According to the present appellants, the period of 60 days as provided in Rule 7(2) of Rules 1995 came to be completed on 25.08.2021 and by that date, no police report under Section 173(2) of Code was submitted before the learned Special Court concerned. Therefore, on 26.08.2021, the present appellants moved an application, seeking default bail as provided in Section 167(2) of Code before the learned Special Court concerned on the ground that the investigation was not concluded within the period of 60 days as provided in Rule 7(2) Rules, 1995 and no charge sheet came to be submitted within the period of 60 days, therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as provided in Section 167(2) of Code. It also appears from the perusal of memo of instant appeal that according to the present appellants, the charge sheet came to be submitted against the present appellants on 26.08.2021. However, ultimately the application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of Code came to be rejected by means of impugned order dated 10.09.2021.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is patently illegal insofar as the same has been passed without due application of judicial mind and in utter violation of provision contained in Rule 7(2) of Rules, 1995.

6. His further submission is that the impugned order dated 10.09.2021 itself reveals the fact that in this matter charge sheet came to be filed in the learned trial court on the 61st day. Learned trial court took cognizance of the matter and proceeded accordingly, however, by means of impugned order dated 10.09.2021, learned trial court rejected the application moved by the appellants seeking default bail which, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants were entitled to, in view of provision contained in Section 7(2) of Rules, 1995. He has also submitted that learned trial court fell in error in holding that since it is a case of default bail, it shall necessarily be governed b