1 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005115

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+

CRL.REV. P. 929/2019

Date of Decision: 15.11.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE

NCT OF DELHI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Amit Ahalawat, APP for State

Versus

RIYAZUDDIN @RAJU @BILLI

S/O AKBAR

R/O CS-91/6 LAKDI MARKET NEAR

USMANIYA MASJID, WELCOME

SEELAMPUR, DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

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

Signed By:PRATIMA

Signing Date:25.11.2022

11:19:55

Signature Not Verified

2 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005115

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.

Signed By:PRATIMA

Signing Date:25.11.2022

11:19:55

Signature Not Verified

3 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005115

(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 ¹has 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" t