SUNNY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law arising out of same set of facts has been raised in all these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications moved by the applicants under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., against four separate orders dtd. 12/9/2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.151 of 2023, State Vs. Sunny @ Sarik Ahmad; Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.152 of 2023, State Vs. Suraj Chetri; Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.150 of 2023, State Vs. Nand Kishor Kala; and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.154 of 2023, State Vs. Vishal Bhardwaj respectively, whereby, the bail cancellation applications moved on behalf of State, against the orders of default bail given to the applicants vide orders dtd. 11/4/2022 and 7/4/2022, by learned ACJM, Dehradun, were allowed; hence, all these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Applicants Sunny @ Sarik Ahmad, Suraj Chetri, Nand Kishor Kala and Vishal Bhardwaj were facing investigation in connection with Crime No.8 of 2022 under Ss. 452, 447, 448, 427, 323, 506, 395, 397, 412 and 34 of IPC registered with Police Station Clementown, Dehradun.

(3.) The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that a first information report was lodged in Police Station Clementown, Dehradun being Case Crime No. 8 of 2022 under Ss. 452, 447, 448, 427, 323, 506, 395, 397, 412 and 34 of IPC and the applicants were arrested in the aforesaid case crime number and sent to judicial custody on 5/2/2022, 6/2/2022, 4/2/2022 and 6/2/2022 respectively. When more than 60 days' period of judicial custody expired and no charge-sheet could be submitted by the prosecution, the applicants moved applications under the Proviso appended to sub-Sec. (2) to Sec. 167 of Cr.P.C. seeking default bail. Although, those applications for default bail of the applicants, moved on the ground that even after expiration of 60 days' in the judicial custody, no charge-sheet was submitted, was opposed by the respondent-State that since the accusation(s) against the applicants involved Sec. 395 IPC, which is punishable with 'imprisonment for life' or 'with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years', it was contended that the applicants were not entitled to be released on default bail after expiry of a period of 60 days, as in such cases, the period to complete investigation is prescribed as 90 days instead of 60 days. This argument advanced on behalf of the State did not find favour with the learned Magistrate, and accordingly, the applicants were granted default bail by the learned Magistrate as stated above.