IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(Through Video Conferencing)

CRR-1334-2021

Date of decision: 12.11.2021

Mahinder Singh @ Mohinder Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :

Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab

for the respondent-State.

Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate

for the complainant.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel has challenged the order dated 21.10.2021

vide which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail under Section

167 (2) Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.201 dated 15.10.2015 under Sections

376 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the SC/ST Act”)

registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar was declined.

Learned counsel contends that no doubt the final report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court concerned

(JMIC, Ajnala) within the stipulated period of 90 days on 01.07.2021,

however, the Court returned the same after 03 months i.e. on

06.10.2021, with directions to present it before the Court of competent

jurisdiction i.e. Special Court dealing with offences under the SC/ST

Act. He further submitted that the petitioner in the meantime moved an

application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking default bail before the

Special Court concerned on 13.10.2021, which came to be dismissed on

SONIA BURA

2021.11.15 17:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

chandigarh

CRR-1334-2021

-2-

21.10.2021 vide impugned order annexed with the petition. Still

further, he submitted that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was

presented on 19.10.2021 only after the application under Section 167(2)

Cr.PC had been moved by the petitioner before the Special Court

concerned. Learned counsel has vehemently urged that since the final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) had been presented before

the Court of competent jurisdiction beyond the stipulated time frame of

90 days, he had acquired his indefeasible right to default bail. It was

also submitted that since the petitioner had already moved an

application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail, the

subsequent filing of the challan on 19.10.2021 would not in any manner

extinguish his right to get default bail as had been held by the Apex

Court in Uday Mohan Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2001) 5

SCC 453. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Satish Kumar

and others Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2021 (3) RCR

(Criminal) 115 in support of his submissions.

On being put to notice, the learned State counsel contended

that once the challan stood presented within the stipulated period of 90

days before a Court, if at all an error qua the jurisdiction had occurred it

could not come to the rescue of the petitioner more so since he was

involved in a heinous crime and had also been declared a proclaimed

offender after the registration of the FIR in question. It was submitted

that the impugned order in the facts and circumstances could not thus

be faulted with.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

SONIA BURA

2021.11.15 17:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

chandigarh

CRR-1334-2021

-3-

It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provision of

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which reads as thus:-

"(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, authorize

the detention of the accused in 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 may order the accused to be forwarded to

a Magistr