The court affirmed the appropriateness of the bail granted under the statutory provisions, establishing the legality of the Judicial Magistrate's decision based on the 90-day charge sheet requirement.

ORDER

This criminal revision is filed by the defacto complainant against the order of bail granted to the respondents 3 and 4, who are accused in Cr.No.213 of 2023, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet.

2 Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the second respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.213 of 2023 against the respondents 3 and 4 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 409 , 419 and 120B . Pending investigation, the respondents 3 and 4 have filed petition under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. . seeking statutory bail. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, by an order dated 16.08.2023, in C.M.P.No.5301 of 2023, granted bail observing that the petitioners were in judicial custody for 61 days and charge sheet has not yet been filed.

Challenging the same, the defacto complainant is before this Court with the present criminal revision case.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that the accused have filed the petition under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. . on the 60^th of their arrest, whereas, the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 409 , which is punishable for more than ten years, for which the statutory period for filing charge sheet is only 90 days and not 60 days. The learned Magistrate without considering the above facts, erroneously granted bail to the respondents 3 and 4/accused, which warrants interference of this Court.

4 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and

2 would submit that statutory period for filing charge sheet for the offence under Section 409 is 90 days, but the accused approached the Court on the 60^th day itself and the learned Magistrate also without considering the above fact, granted bail, which warrants interference of this Court. Further now charge sheet has also been filed on 30.11.2024.

5 Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that in this case, even till date, charge sheet has not been filed and hence the accused are entitled to statutory bail.

6 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first and second respondents and the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statutory period for the offence under Section 409 is 90 days and the accused had approached the Court on the 60^th day and the learned Magistrate also granted bail, which is not sustainable in law. It is to be noted that the accused were arrested on 16.06.2023, whereas charge sheet has been filed only on 30.11.2024, i.e. only after the lapse of 90 days. Therefore there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner/defacto complainant. This Court does not find any reason to interfere the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

8 Accordingly, this criminal revision case stands dismissed.