SAKIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 272/2023 registered at police station Govind Puri, District South-East, New Delhi for offence punishable under Sec. 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a PCR Call vide DD No.3A dtd. 02/05/2023, regarding physical assault of a 17 years old victim was received at P.S. Govindpuri, New Delhi. The victim had stated that she is living with her parents in Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi and is currently studying. It was stated that her mother had called barber Sakil Ahamad i.e. the present applicant/accused to cut her hair and he had visited their home at about 10:30 PM on 1/5/2023. It was stated that the present applicant/accused Sakil Ahamad had molested the minor victim. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered and the medical examination of the victim was conducted at AIIMS, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, present applicant/accused Sakil Ahmad was arrested on 2/5/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the charge-sheet in the said FIR was filed on the 61st Day. He points out that the first day of the remand in this case i.e. 3/5/2023 is to be included for the purpose of calculating the statutory period of completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet. It is submitted that the day when the accused is remanded is to be included in the statutory period provided under Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has admittedly filed the incomplete chargesheet on 02/07/2023 with noting that 'The statement of the witnesses has been recorded and the CDR and location of the victim's parents and accused are being procured. On procurement of the same, the supplementary chargesheet shall be filed. It is stated that the learned Trial Court ought to have granted statutory bail in view of the fact that the chargesheet was not filed within statutory period of 60 days. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. Learned counsel also submits that inadvertently, in the caption of the present application, he could not mention 'default bail' and has only sought grant of regular bail, and orally prays that the present application be treated as an application seeking default bail.