RANDEEP SINGH RANDHAWA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law arising out of same set of facts has been raised in both these Criminal Miscellaneous Applications moved by the applicants under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., against two separate orders dtd. 12/9/2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.153 of 2023, State Vs. Randeep Singh Randhawa and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.149 of 2023, State Vs. Veersain Kashyap, whereby, the bail cancellation applications moved on behalf of State, against the orders of default bail given to the applicants vide order dtd. 11/4/2022 by learned ACJM, Dehradun, were allowed; hence, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Both the applicants Randeep Singh Randhawa and Veersain Kashyap 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 Clement Town, Dehradun.

(3.) The brief facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that a first information report was lodged in Police Station Clement Town, 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 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 saying 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.