OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner is accused of having committed offences under Sections 376(2)(g)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'). The petitioner claims 'bail-on-default' under the provisions of Proviso (a) (ii) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC'). Therefore, some dates would be relevant. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station Sameypur Badli on 17.2.2005. He was arrested on the same day. On 18.2.2005, he was remanded to judicial custody and continues to be in custody. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the charge-sheet was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of the first remand i.e., 18.2.2005. Since the charge-sheet had not been filed by 18.4.2005 (the date, when, the 60 days period came to an end) the petitioner on 4.5.2005 filed an application before the Magistrate claiming release on bail in terms of Proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2) of CrPC. While the application was pending, the charge-sheet was filed on 12.5.2005. When the said application came to be disposed of on 21.5.2005, two issues arose for consideration. The first issue was about the filing of the charge-sheet and as to whether it cured the alleged 'defect' of non-filing of the same in time. To be fair to the Magistrate, he decided this issue straightaway and, I may add, correctly by holding that the subsequently filed charge-sheet would not cure the defect. The second issue was whether the case at hand fell under Proviso (a)(ii) to Section 167(2), CrPC or under Proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2), CrPC. The former requires the chargesheet to be filed within 60 days and the latter, 90 days. The Magistrate held that the 90 day period was applicable and therefore the charge-sheet was in time. The petitioner then moved an application before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated 23.5.2005 rejected the same holding that the period applicable was 90 days and the charge-sheet had been filed within that period.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court. The questions remain the same:

(3.) In view of the answers to the two questions mentioned in paragraph 2 above and the reasons therefor as indicated above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.