The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashment of the order dated 9.8.2023 passed by ASJ

and Special Court (under the Electricity Act) in crime NO.

Signed by: MUKTA

CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL

Signing time: 09-11-2023

17:08:53

Signature Not Verified

2

522/2022 affirming the order dated 31.7.2023 passed by JMFC

in criminal case No. 4757/2023.

2. The petitioner is claiming default bail on the ground

that respondent has failed to file chargesheet within the period

of 90 days under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for default bail.

3. Facts of the case are that applicant is accused in crime

No. 522/2022 registered at P.S. M.G. Road, Indore for

commission of offence under section 420, 467, 468 and 471

IPC. According to the applicant, he surrendered before the

Magistrate on 2.5.2023 and on the said date, order of remand

was passed. The period of 90 days expired on 30.7.2023 and

the chargesheet was filed on 31.7.2023, beyond the period of

90 days, and therefore indefeasible right has accrued in favour

of the petitioner for grant of default bail. In support of his

submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of Enforcement Directorate,

Govt. of India Vs. Kapil Wadhwan (Cr.Appeal No.701-

702/2020) decided on 27.3.2023. He also referred the order

passed by High Court of Orissa in case of Lambodar Bag Vs.

Signed by: MUKTA

CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL

Signing time: 09-11-2023

17:08:53

Signature Not Verified

3

State of Orissa, (2018) 71 OCR 31 and the judgment passed

by Madras High Court on 6.12.2021 in CRL OP (MD)

No.18273 of 2021 (K.Muthuirul Vs. Inspector of Police).

4. Per contra, counsel for the State submitted that

chargesheet was filed on 31.7.2023 and the applicant filed an

application for grant of default bail after filing of the

chargesheet and therefore, in the light of the judgment passed

by the Apex Court in the case of Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2011) 10 SCC 445, no indefeasible

right would accrue under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.. Counsel

further submitted that chargesheet was already submitted to the

Magistrate before expiration of 90 days. However, the

Magistrate was on remand duty, therefore, the chargesheet

could not be filed in the Court. He has produced copy

of Roznamcha dated 29.7.2023.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is

apposite to refer the relevant provision of section 167(2)

Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein under :-

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under

this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the

case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in

Signed by: MUKTA

CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL

Signing time: 09-11-2023

17:08:53

Signature Not Verified

4

such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding

fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the

case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention

unnecessary, he ma order the accused to be forwarded to a

Magistrate having such jurisdiction.

Provided that -

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused

person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the

period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist

for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the

accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period

exceeding -

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence

punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for

a term of not less than ten years ;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other

offence, and on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or

sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released

on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person

released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so

released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the