ASHWANI LOCHAN AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this petition is styled as a revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned ACMM (Delhi), the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the objection having been raised by the learned counsel for the State as to its maintainability, requested that it be treated as an application for bail under section 167(2) of the Code. The petition has, therefore, been argued as such and not as a revision petition.

(2.) The order dated 14.11.2006 came to be passed on an application under section 167(2) of the Code filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking bail on default of the investigating agency completing the investigation within 60 days. There is a controversy as to whether the 60 days period as provided in clause (a)(ii) of the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code would be applicable to the present case. The petitioner would have the Court believe that the period applicable is 60 days. On the other hand, the State has taken the stand that the period permissible for completing the investigation while keeping the petitioner in custody is 90 days as stipulated in clause (a)(i) of the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code. If it is 60 days then, the petitioner would be entitled to bail as the period of 60 days has elapsed and the investigation has not been completed. But, if it is 90 days then, the petitioner would not be entitled to bail as the period of 90 days has not elapsed.

(3.) This controversy has arisen because initially when the First Information Report (FIR No. 278/06) was registered at Police Station Civil Lines on 7.9.2006, it was registered under sections 120B/ 468/ 471/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). There is no dispute that if these were the only provisions of the IPC with regard to which the investigation was in progress then, clause (a)(ii) of the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code would be applicable and the limitation for completing investigation would be 60 days. But, the matter does not stop here.