SHYAMAL KUMAR BISWAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner herein calls in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 26/05/2020 (Annexure P/1), by which the accused/respondent No. 2 herein has been admitted the privilege of default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, on the following factual backdrop :-

(2.) Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the decision of this Court rendered in Smt. Shalini Verma (supra), to some extent, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam , 2017 15 SCC 67 as in the matter of Smt. Shalini Verma (supra), the concurring view of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Paul (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court, as such, for the offence under Section 467 of IPC, the punishment prescribed is life sentence as well as imprisonment for more than ten years, therefore, the period for filing of charge-sheet would be within ninety days and not sixty days. Thus, learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely unjustified in granting default bail to the accused/respondent No. 2 and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent No. 2, would support the impugned order and submit that learned Sessions Judge has rightly granted default bail to the accused/respondent No. 2 and accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.