LAWS(SC)-2006-7-75

BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

Decided On July 13, 2006
BHUPINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
JARNAIL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.

(3.) Factual background in a nutshell is as under : On 16-4-2003 appellant No. 1-Bhupinder Singh was married to Smt. Kamaljit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). On 2-8-2004 she was found dead. On the allegation that the appellants had committed murder of the deceased, First Information Report (in short the FIR) was lodged by the respondent-Jarnail Singh and on that basis appellants 1 and 2 (Bhupinder and Balwinder) were arrested on 5-8-2004. Subsequently on 7-8-2004 appellant No. 3 (Kanwaljit Kaur) was arrested. Prayer for bail was made before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Batala on 4-11-2004 who refused to grant bail to the appellants. Their stand before the Court in essence was that since challan was not filed in time, they were entitled to bail in terms of S. 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr. P.C.). Learned Magistrate rejected the application stating that the challan was presented in Court prior to the completion of 90 days and, therefore, it was presented within the prescribed period. The order was challenged before learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who granted bail relying on certain decisions of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court (State vs. B. B. Singh (2005 (1) Chand LR 135); Amer vs. State of Karnataka (2005 (1) Rec Cri 107) and Nadeem Ahmed vs. State (2004 Cri LJ 4798) holding that in relation to S. 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) period of 60 days of remand would be applicable and not 90 days for the purpose of S. 167(2)(a)(ii). Questioning correctness of the said decision a revision-petition was filed before the High Court by the complainant-respondent No. 1. The High Court referring to the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 167, Cr. P.C. held that the period during which the challan has to be filed is 90 days and not 60 days as held by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the order granting bail to the appellants was set aside.