STATE Vs. B B SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition u/s 439 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in FIR No. 118/2003, u/s 498-A/ 304B / 406/ 34 IPC, P.S. Inderpuri, Delhi.

(2.) Vide impugned order dated 27.8.2003, learned ASJ has granted bail to the respondents under the proviso (a) (ii) to section 167 (2) Cr.P.C being of the view that for an offence u/s 304B IPC the Magistrate can authorise detention during investigation only for a period of sixty days.

(3.) Admittedly, challan in this case was not filed within a period of sixty days from the date of arrest of the respondent. The only point canvased before me by the learned counsel for the State is that in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ketan Seth reported in 2003 1 AD (Cr.) BOM. 412 and in case of State of H.P. Vs. Lal Singh- 2003 CRI.L.J. 1668 view taken by the respective High Courts is that if for the alleged offence the accused can be convicted for more than ten years the period of detention would be 90 days as provided in proviso (a) (i) to section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Earlier in the case of GPS Rana Vs. The State ( NCT of Delhi)- CRLMM 3341/2002 decided on 1.11.2002, I have taken the view that in cases where punishment could be for less than ten years, the period of detention during investigation could be only up to 60 days and not ninety days. This view of mine was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT of Delhi-(2001) 5 SCC 34. This judgment has been referred to in the Bombay case as well as H.P. Case cited above. The answer, therefore, will depend upon correct understanding of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Choudhary (Supra) Therefore, the relevant facts of the case and the observation made by the Supreme Court on law point have to be taken note of in depth and detail.