J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as „Çr.P.C.‟) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the learned ASJ-05, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No.20/2019, whereby the order passed by the learned MM dated 15.04.2019, rejecting an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., had been reversed, and the respondent had been directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in terms of the provision of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Learned APP for the State/petitioner submits that the order passed by the revisional court is erroneous inasmuch as, the prosecution has filed the chargesheet against the respondent on 14.04.2019 itself and, therefore, the learned MM had rightly rejected his application for grant of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. According to him, the accused does not enjoy “indefeasible right” for grant of bail subsequent to filing of the chargesheet. He placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.

63866/2021, Baludas v. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 10.05.2022.

3. I have heard learned APP for the State/petitioner and perused the record. The following are the undisputed facts in the instant case:-

(i) On 31.01.2019, the respondent-accused was arrested in connection with FIR No. 14/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/147/148/120-B/34 of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. (ii) The respondent-accused was produced before the Magistrate on 14.01.2019 and he was remanded to police custody for two days.

Thereafter, he was sent to judicial custody.

(iii) On 15.04.2019 at about 11:20 a.m., the respondent-accused through his counsel, inquired about the status of the chargesheet and since the same was not filed, therefore, he immediately filed an application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. showing his willingness to furnish the bail bonds. His application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

was taken up by the court at 2:00 p.m.

(iv) While recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused, the matter was passed over for 3:00 p.m., for the appearance of the Investigating Officer.

(v) At 3:00 p.m., the Investigating Officer appeared and submitted the chargesheet.

(vi) Since the chargesheet was submitted, therefore, the learned MM rejected the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2019. However, filing of an application for bail is a prior event, than filing of the chargesheet.

4. The order passed by the learned MM was challenged by the accused in revision before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The revisional court while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam 1 has held that since the chargesheet was not filed within a period of 90 days from the date of remand and the accused had shown his willingness for furnishing bail bonds, the subsequent filing of the chargesheet would not defeat his "indefeasible right" to be released under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order passed by the learned MM and directed the accused to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of the sum of ₹15,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned APP for the State/petitioner, this court finds that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is strictly in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference.

1 (2017) 15 SCC 67

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI, Bombay (II)2, in paragraph No.53 (2) (b) has held that “indefeasible right” of the accused to be released on bail is a right which is enforceable by t