SHAILENDER KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that an FIR was registered under Section 302/34 IPC on 12.9.1994 though the alleged date of occurrence is 3.1.1992, pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested on 8.11.1994 and on the same day he was remanded to judicial custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Challan was filed on 6.2.1995 i.e. on 91st day. Counsel for the petitioner is entitled to bail under the provisions of Section 167 sub-section 2 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his argument, he has cited AIR 1992 SC 1768, AIR 1990 SC 71, 1986 Cr. L.J. 2081. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 8.11.1994 and the period of 90 days would start from 8.11.1994 itself. In support of his arguments he has cited AIR 1986 SC 2130.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that in this case the petitioner has wrongly argued that the Challan was filed on 91st day, as a matter of fact the Challan was filed on 90th day, if 8.11.1994 is excluded. Mr. Sharma has further contended that 8.11.1994, the date when the petitioner was arrested and was also remanded to the judicial custody by the competent Court, has to be excluded for the purposes of computation of 90 days.

(3.) WITH these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Dasti. Bail granted.