JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

A common question of law arising out of same set of facts has been raised in both these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications moved by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against two separate orders dated 12.09.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.153 of 2023, State Vs. Randeep Singh Randhawa and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.149 of 2023, State Vs. Veersain Kashyap, whereby, the bail cancellation applications moved on behalf of State, against the orders of default bail given to the applicants vide order dated 11.04.2022 by learned ACJM, Dehradun, were allowed; hence, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Both the applicants Randeep Singh Randhawa and Veersain Kashyap were facing investigation in connection with Crime No.8 of 2022 under Sections 452, 447, 448, 427, 323, 506, 395, 397, 412 and 34 of IPC registered with Police Station Clement Town, Dehradun.

3. The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that a first information report was lodged in Police Station Clement Town, Dehradun being Case Crime No. 8 of 2022 under Sections 452, 447, 448, 427, 323, 506, 395, 397, 412 and 34 of IPC and the applicants were arrested in the aforesaid case crime number and sent to judicial custody on 04.02.2022 and 06.02.2022 respectively. When more than 60 days’ period of judicial custody expired and no charge-sheet could be submitted by the prosecution, the applicants moved applications under the Proviso appended to sub-Section (2) to Section 167 of Cr.P.C. seeking default bail. Although, those applications for default bail of the applicants moved on the ground that even after expiration of 60 days’ in the judicial custody, no charge-sheet was submitted, was opposed by the respondent-State saying that since the accusation(s) against the applicants involved Section 395 IPC, which is punishable with ‘imprisonment for life’ or ‘with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years’, it was contended that the applicants were not entitled to be released on default bail after expiry of a period of 60 days, as in such cases, the period to complete investigation is prescribed as 90 days instead of 60 days. This argument advanced on behalf of the State did not find favour with the learned Magistrate, and accordingly, the applicants were granted default bail by the learned Magistrate as stated above.

4. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid default bail granted to the applicants, the State moved bail cancellation applications before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, raising the same argument that since the accusations against the applicants involve Section 395 IPC, which is punishable with ‘imprisonment for life’ or ‘with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years’, Proviso to Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. shall be applicable for completion of the investigation and not Proviso to Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., and in that eventuality, the period for investigation would be 90 days.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun by reason of impugned orders dated 12.09.2023 mentioned above in the first paragraph of the judgment, found favour with the argument advanced by the respondent-State and accordingly, cancelled the default bail granted to the applicants.

6. Now, the applicants are before this Court by filing the instant C-482 applications.

7. Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.S. Rawal, learned A.G.A. for the State in detail.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned orders, whereby, the default bail granted to the applicants were cancelled, run contrary to the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67.

9. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, in brief, are as under :

(1) The offence under Section 395 of IPC involved in the instant case p