STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BABU ALIAS VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this petition under Section 439(2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent herein who is the accused in S.C. No. 165/92 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) It is seen that the accused preferred I. A. II before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 167 of the Cr. P.C. for being released on bail on the ground that the charge sheet had not been filed within 90 days from the date of arrest, by the investigating officer. Despite the objection by the learned Public Prosecutor that the period of 90 days had to be counted from the date on which the accused was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and not from the date of arrest and that the charge sheet had been filed within 90 days from the date on which the accused was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, by the police and despite the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in 1986 (2) Crimes 678 : (AIR 1986 SC 2130) (SC) was brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, he came to the conclusion that the charge sheet had not been filed within 90 days from the date of arrest or from the date of his remand by the Jurisdictional Magistrate to Judicial Custody and granted bail under Section 167 (2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. It is the legality and correctness of this order that have been questioned by the State in this petition.

(3.) The records in the case indicate that the accused was apprehended by Head Constable 1822 on 18-2-1992 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 19-2-1992 and he was remanded to Judicial Custody till 4-3-l992. The charge sheet has been submitted to the Court on 18-5-1992. These aspects are not disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondent-accused and they are borne out by the records of the learned Magistrate. Whether the period of 90 days as provided by proviso (a) (i) to Section 167(2) Cr. P. C. has to be counted from the date of arrest of the accused or from the date of first production of the accused before the Magistrate is fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Chaganti Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 2130 has laid down in an unequivocal terms, the law to the effect that the period of 90 days or 60 days envisaged by proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. begins to run from the date of order of remand and not from the earlier date when the accused was arrested. It has been observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment as hereunder :-