D. GUNDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in C.C.No.438/2016 and the order of the III Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, dated 30.6.2016 in Crl.R.P.5005/2016 whereby both the courts have rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 309(2) r/w. section 167(2) of Crimial P.C. Hence, the petitioner has sought to quash the above orders.

(2.) The essential facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was arrested on 16.12.2015 in Cr.No.343/2015 registered by the respondent/Anekal Police for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 17.12.2015 at 4.30 p.m. and was remanded to judicial custody till 31.12.2015. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be laid before the learned Magistrate on 15.3.2016 and on the same day, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and directed registration of the case in Register No.III.

(3.) On 24.3.2016, the petitioner/accused moved an application under section 309(2) r/w. section 167(2) of Crimial P.C. contending that as per the provisions of law, the respondent/Police was required to submit the final report/charge-sheet within 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner. The respondent/Police filed the charge-sheet on 15.3.2016 and the accused was remanded to JC under section 167(2) of Crimial P.C. The petitioner took up a contention that the remand under Sec. 167(2) of Crimial P.C. ended on 15.3.2016 and therefore any further remand could have been made only under section 309 of Crimial P.C. hence the remand of the petitioner/accused is illegal, unlawful and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.