HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 15770 / 2017

Vishambhar Das S/o Shri Sitaram Das B/c Ramanandi Sadhu,

Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ramjanki Mandir OBC Colony, Near

Gyan Vihar Enginiring Collage Mahal Jagatpura, Police Station

Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. (At Present Confined in Central Jail,

Jaipur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Upman with Mr.Rajveer Singh

For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.R.S.Rathore PP.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

27/11/2017

1.

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C.

2.

F.I.R. No.559/2017, was registered at Police Station

Kardhani, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 305, 306 and

384 I.P.C.

3.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the

police has investigated the case for offence under Section 306 IPC.

Petitioner was arrested on 7.9.2017 and after he moved the

application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on 8.11.2017 that

offence under Section 305, 384 IPC was added by the police to

deprive the petitioner of the liberty of bail. My attention has been

drawn towards the remand papers of the co-accused dated

8.11.2017, wherein, the offence mentioned was under Sections

(2 of 3)

[CRLMB-15770/2017]

306 and 384 IPC and at that time also offence under Section 305

IPC was not added.

4.

It is contended that the investigation took place for offence

under Section 306 IPC. Charge-sheet has not been filed within

sixty days of the arrest of the petitioner and subsequently if some

other section is added that could not come in way of grant of bail

to the petitioner.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of

Maharashtra Vs. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan 2002

Criminal (SC) 10, wherein offences under MCOC Act was added

after twenty one days of the investigation for offence under

Section 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 of IPC. The Apex Court

held that the investigation into the offence for which a person was

arrested would continue to relate to the same offence, even if

other offence is added and hence the period envisaged in the

proviso to Section 167(2) cannot be extended.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and has placed reliance on “Pawan Jogi Vs. State of

Rajasthan” decided by the Rajasthan High Court on

28.7.2015, wherein Section 305 of IPC was added in lieu of

Section 306 of IPC. The Court refused to grant bail to the

petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and held that period of

ninety days would be applicable.

7.

I have considered the contentions. In the present case, in

hand five persons have died by consuming poison. One of the

family member took loan from lenders and gave it to other person

through the petitioner. On demand being raised by the lenders the

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-15770/2017]

deceased committed suicide after poisoning his family members

including a minor child. The police initially proceeded under

Section 306 of IPC and was required to file the charge-sheet

within sixty days after the date of arrest. The sixty days period

expired on 6.11.2017 and application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C

was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.2017 other co-accused was

arrested later and in his remind order the offence mentioned was

Section 306, 384 of IPC.

8.

In view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of

Maharashtra Vs. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan (supra)

and the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the considered view

that the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within sixty days.

9.

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

10.

This bail appli