CRR- 2269 of 2022 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

CRR- 2269 of 2022

Date of Decision: 17.02.2023

Mukesh Kumar

---Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

---Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Gurbir Singh Sidhu, AAG, Haryana

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner through instant petition is seeking setting aside of

order dated 12.10.2022 whereby Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar has

dismissed application of the petitioner seeking permission to furnish bail

bonds and surety bonds.

2. The brief facts emerging from record and arguments of both sides

are that on the basis of statement of Satish Kumar, FIR No. 322 dated

5.8.2022, under Sections 354, 376-AB, 506 IPC and Sections 6 & 10 of

POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act (at Police Station, Beri)

came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on

08.08.2022 and remanded to police custody for one day. The petitioner was

sent to judicial custody on 09.08.2022.

3.

The police failed to file its report in terms of Section 173(1A)

Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short “the Code”) within 60 days from the

date of judicial remand of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI

2023.02.24 13:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR- 2269 of 2022 -2-

application seeking default bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code. The

regular Judge was on leave and the matter came up for consideration before

Duty Judge, who after seeking report of Ahlmad, came to a conclusion that

police has not filed its report within sixty days, in terms of Section 173(1A)

of the Code. The Duty Judge vide order dated 10.10.2022 allowed

application of the petitioner seeking default bail in terms of Section 167(2)

Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds with two sureties

forthwith. The petitioner appended one surety bond duly identified by

counsel alongwith his application under Section 167(2) of the Code. The

petitioner filed another surety bond, however, he was not released on bail.

4.

The petitioner on 11.10.2022 moved an application seeking

permission for furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds and State filed

application under Section 439(2) of the Code seeking cancellation of default

bail. Both the applications came up for consideration before regular Judge

who vide impugned order dated 12.10.2022 dismissed application of the

petitioner as well of the State. Learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Exclusive Court), Jhajjar while passing impugned order observed that there

is amendment in Section 173 of the Code, which enjoins police authorities to

file challan within sixty days in case of offences punishable under Sections

376, 376-AB, 376B, 376D of IPC etc., however, there is no amendment in

Section 167 IPC providing for default bail, thus, petitioner is not entitled to

default bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is

settled proposition of law that no provision of a Statute can be read in such a

way which would make it redundant. The interpretation made by trial Court

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI

2023.02.24 13:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR- 2269 of 2022 -3-

of Section 173 (1A) of the Code has made the provision redundant if

petitioner is not released on bail in case of non-filing of challan within sixty

days. He further submits that learned trial court had no power to cancel bail

which was granted by his predecessor in terms of Section 167(2) IPC.

In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon five

Judge bench judgment of