AMEER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only short point that arises for consideration in this matter is,

(2.) IN the case on hand, at first instance, f. I. R. came to be issued for an offence punishable under Section 366-A against the petitioner-accused. However, later on. Sections 342 and 376 of I. P. C. also came to be added on the request made. The petitioner was arrested on 14-12-2003. However, charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from that date. So, an application under section 437 read with Section 167 (2) (a) (ii)of Cr. P. C. was filed by the petitioner-accused before the learned Magistrate to release him on bail on the ground that charge-sheet has not been filed within a period of 60 days provided under Section 167 (2) (a) (ii)of Cr. P. C. But, the learned Magistrate rejected that application holding that since one of the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused is punishable under Section 376 of i. P. C. , the prosecution gets 90 days' period to file charge-sheet. Challenging that order, the petitioner approached the Court of Session in Crl. R. P. No. 21/2004, but he was unsuccessful in that. Hence, he is before this court now under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the learned State Public prosecutor, and perused the records carefully.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued for the petitioner that in view of the fact that Section 376 of I. P. C. is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years. Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr. P. C. is not attracted and as such, within the period of 60 days only, charge-sheet was required to be filed, and since the same was not filed within that period, the petitioner-accused was entitled to be released on bail, but the learned Magistrate has wrongly rejected his request, which has been Wrongly confirmed by the Sessions Court. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned s. P. P. that for the said offence, since the punishment may extend to imprisonment for life also, which is certainly a period for more than 10 years, Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr. P. C. applies and not Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr. P. C. and consequently, he supported the impugned orders.