ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant/State being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2020 passed by JMFC, Indore in Case No.6891/2020 under section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 in Crime No.11/20202 registered at Police station, Annapurna, Indore whereby the respondent has been granted default bail under section 167(2) of CrPC for non compliance of the aforesaid provision in filing the charge sheet within the prescribed period.

2. In the present case, notice was issued to the respondent on 28.6.2021 but he did not appear then again even after service of the notices, SPC was issued on 9.9.2021, but again no response has been made on behalf of the respondent though served. Hence, proper opportunity has already been granted to the respondent.

3. The facts in short is that, the petitioner was granted default bail by the learned trial Court on 12.12.2020 with regard to the provisions as stated above considering the fact that the prosecution has not filed the charge-sheet against the respondent within 60 days and the same was filed within 72 days, which is an admitted fact.

4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in considering the gravity of offence and the sentence prescribed under the provision of section 467 of IPC and has erred in considering the law in the case of Shalini Verma And Anr v. State of Chhatisgarh 2019 SCC Online CG 22 and misinterpreted the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam reported in 2017(15) SCC 67. The charge-sheet has been filed within prescribed period i.e. within 90 days, hence, the order of the trial Court dated 12.12.2020 is liable to be quashed and the respondent may kindly be directed to take into custody.

5. I have heard the counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. The application for default bail was decided by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2020 relying upon the decisions of Shalini Verma (supra), and Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), holding that as per the provisions for which the petitioner has been implicated, minimum sentence less than 0 years can also be imposed.

7. From the aforesaid factual backdrop, only one issue is has to consider by this Court “what is the period for filing the chargesheet in a case falling u/s.467 of CrPC, inter alia, i.e. whether it would be 60 days or 90 days from the date of remand?

8. So far as the question for the period of filing of the charge sheet under section 167 (2) of the CrPC is concerned, this issue has already been considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nikhil Halabhavi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in ILR 2021 MP 1178 and this issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra), wherein the decision in the case of Bhupinder Singh has been overruled. The relevant paras of the same are as under :

“25. While it is true that merely because a minimum sentence is provided for in the statute it does not mean that only the minimum sentence is imposable. Equally, there is also nothing to suggest that only the maximum sentence is imposable. Either punishment can be imposed and even something in between. Where does one strike a balance? It was held that it is eventually for the Court to decide what sentence should be imposed given the range available. Undoubtedly, the legislature can bind the sentencing Court by laying down the minimum sentence (not less than) and it can also lay down the maximum sentence. If the minimum is laid down, the sentencing Judge has no option but to give a sentence “not less than” that sentence provided for. Therefore, the words “not less than” occurring in clause (i) to proviso (a) of section 167(2) CrPC (and in other provisions) must be given their natural and obvious meaning, which is to say, not below a minimum threshold and in the case of section 167 CrPC these words must relate t