JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 272/2023 registered at police station Govind Puri, District South-East, New Delhi for offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a PCR Call vide DD No.3A dated 02/05/2023, regarding physical assault of a 17 years old victim was received at P.S. Govindpuri, New Delhi. The victim had stated that she is living with her parents in Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi and is currently studying. It was stated that her mother had called barber Sakil Ahamad i.e. the present applicant/accused to cut her hair and he had visited their home at about 10:30 PM on 01.05.2023. It was stated that the present applicant/accused Sakil Ahamad had molested the minor victim. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered and the medical examination of the victim was conducted at AIIMS, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, present applicant/accused Sakil Ahmad was arrested on 02.05.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the charge-sheet in the said FIR was filed on the 61st Day. He points out that the first day of the remand in this case i.e. 03.05.2023 is to be included for the purpose of calculating the statutory period of completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet. It is submitted that the day when the accused is remanded is to be included in the statutory period provided under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has admittedly filed the incomplete chargesheet on 02/07/2023 with noting that “The statement of the witnesses has been recorded and the CDR and location of the victim‟s parents and accused are being procured. On procurement of the same, the supplementary chargesheet shall be filed. It is stated that the learned Trial Court ought to have granted statutory bail in view of the fact that the chargesheet was not filed within statutory period of 60 days. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. Learned counsel also submits that inadvertently, in the caption of the present application, he could not mention „default bail‟ and has only sought grant of regular bail, and orally prays that the present application be treated as an application seeking default bail.

4. Learned APP for the State argues that the chargesheet in the present case has been filed within the stipulated period of 60 days and there is no lapse on the part of the investigating agency. It is stated that the chargesheet was filed on 02.07.2023 which as per calculation comes within the permissible limit of 60 days if calculated from the day of first remand. It is argued that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature and the case involves molestation of a 17 year old victim.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and has perused material on record.

6. The present application has been filed before this Court seeking grant of default bail on the ground that the chargesheet in the present case was not filed within the stipulated period of 60 days as has been mandated by the provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 167 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:

“…167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.

(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer maki