AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for determination in this case is whether an accused person can be remanded to custody for a period beyond 15 days of his arrest in the absence of a police report commonly known as chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein- after referred to as the Code). According to the petitioner's counsel unless a chargesheet is submitted a criminal court has no power to remand an accused to custody after 15 days of his arrest and the accused in such an event must be released on bail. As against that the submission made on behalf of the State is that an accused can be remanded to custody by the Court having jurisdiction in the matter under Section 344 of the Code and it is not obligatory to release the accused on bail after 15 days of his arrest even though the charge-sheet has not been put in the Court. The question has arisen in the following circumstances:

(2.) The dead bady of Sarjeevan Parkash alias Kaka was found in the field in the jurisdiction of Timarpur police post on the morning of September 5, 1969. Ajit Singh and Shankar petitioners were arrested by the police on September 17, 1969 under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Satjeevan Parkash. The two petitioners were produced before the magistrate on September 18, J969 when they were remanded to police custody till September 25, 1969. Further orders remanding the accused to judicial custody were made from time to time till November 15, 1969 when another order for remand was made.

(3.) An application for releasing the two petitioners on bail were rejected by the learned magistrate on October 14. 1969. An application for the release of the petitioners was then made to H the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the application by his order dated November 1, 1969. The petitioners then approached this Court. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that after the expiry of the period of remand. for which the limit prescribed by Section 167 of the Code is 15 days in the whole, no further cider for remand could be passed unless a charge-sheet under Section 173, of the Code was forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. One of us (Hardy, 1.) then found that there was a serious conflict among the different High Courts on the above aspect of the matter He, accordingly expressed the view that the matter should be decided by a larger Bench. The case was then placed before a Division Bench consisting of Hardy and Misra, JJ who, in view of the sharp divergence of opinion, expressed the view that it should be decided by a Full Bench. Before dealing further with the matter it would be convenion to reproduce section 167, relevant part of section 173 and section 344 of the Code: