NADEEM AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an important point which arises for consideration, is,

(2.) FACTS which gave rise to the said point, are : the petitioner-accused No. 1 was produced before the learned Magistrate on 5-4-2004 in Crime No. 38/2004 of shivajinagar Police Station at Bangalore, alleging that he and another accused (accused No. 2) committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and consequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. That custody was extended from time to time. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of his remand. So, on 25-6-2004, the petitioner/ accused No. l filed an application under section 167 of Cr. P. C. requesting for his release on bail on that ground. Thereafter, on hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate rejected that application on 8-7-2004. So, the petitioner is before this Court. After notice to the respondent/state, heard both sides.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued for the petitioner that investigation relating to an offence punishable either under Section 306 of IPC or under Section 304-B of IPC does not come under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr. P. C. , and consequently, the petitioner was entitled to bail as of right when, admittedly, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days provided under Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr. P. C. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned SPP that as, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, which is punishable with an imprisonment which may be for life, Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of cr. P. C. , comes into play and not the other provision providing 60 days' period and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to bail since the charge-sheet was admittedly filed within 90 days' period provided under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr. P. C. , and the trial court has rightly rejected the petition. Perused the records carefully.