SALEEM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2015 passed in Spl. Case No.72/2015 (Crime No.144/2015), pending in the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K.

(2.) The essential facts are that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.144/2015 by the Rural Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences under S.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985. The petitioner was apprehended on 01.04.2015 and since then, is in judicial custody. An application filed under S.439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail on merit was dismissed by an Order dated 02.05.2015. The Investigating Officer having not filed the charge-sheet, on or before 31.05.2015, as required under S.167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C., an application was filed under S.167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. to grant the statutory bail. The charge-sheet was filed by the Police on 03.06.2015. The Trial Judge despite finding, that the decision in RAJEEV CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI, 2001 CrLJ 2941, is applicable and S.167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. also is applicable and even after arriving at the finding, that the Investigating Officer should have filed the charge-sheet within 60 days, by making a reference to the decision in SADHWI PRAGYAN SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,2011 4 Crimes 135 (SC), has dismissed the application by holding as follows:

(3.) Sri S.Vishwajith Shetty, learned advocate, contended that the right of release of the accused on bail, for non filing of charge-sheet within the stipulated period having been guaranteed under law, the Trial Judge, despite having come to the conclusion that the chargesheet ought to have been filed within 60 days and also having noticed that the charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated period, committed illegality in dismissing the application. He submitted that the decision in SADHWI , has no application and the error committed in dismissing the application is apparent on the face of the order. He further submitted that the indefeasible right available to the accused could not have been denied, merely on account of the application filed under S.439 Cr.P.C. to grant bail on merit was dismissed on 02.05.2015 or on the ground that the charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the application filed under S.167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on the decisions in (i) UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2001 CrLJ 1832 and (ii) SAYED MOHD. AHMED KAZMI Vs. STATE, GNCTD AND ORS., 2013 AIR(SC) 152 he contended that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.