MANJIBHAI ISSABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 25-6-1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Narol (Ahmedabad Rural) whereby the learned Judge had held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as the chargesheet is not filed within 90 days. However the learned Judge has ordered that the petitioner will surrender after the chargesheet is filed. The reason given by the learned Judge is that the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days. Therefore in his view the accused person must be released on bail on this ground only upto the time the chargesheet is submitted. After the chargesheet is submitted according to the learned Judge the accused must surrender and seek the bail on the merits of the case.

(2.) This conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not correct. There is nothing in the proviso to sec. 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to suggest such an interpretation Although it is possible to imagine that the object of the proviso to sec. 167(2) of the Code where- by the accused person has to be compulsorily released on bail on account of the inaction on the part of the prosecution. Therefore it may at the first sight appear quite reasonable that when the cause for the delay viz. not filing the chargesheet within the specified time is over the right to bail on the ground of delay only should come to an end and the accused should surrender to his bail and seek the bail afresh on merit wherein the gravity of the offence and other factors may be taken into account. But this view is not correct as the essence of the aforesaid proviso is that when there is a delay in the progress of the trial on account of negligence of the prosecution the accused should not suffer. The intention of the Legislature seems to be that the prosecution should be prompt and avoid delay in prosecuting. If the prosecution is guilty of lethargy or inaction in filing the chargesheet the accused should not suffer. If the accused persons are allowed to remain as under-trial prisoners for a long time due to lethargy or inaction on the part of the prosecution the individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India would be considerably watered down in the case of the accused persons. Hence the aforesaid provision of filing the chargesheet within specified time must be seen in the context of denial of liberty to under-trial prisoners. Unreasonable delay even for a day should not be allowed. The detention of the accused as under-trial prisoner should not be a day longer than what is absolutely necessary. Hence it is held that the correct interpretation of proviso to sec. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be that the accused person has to be released on bail until the trial ends and not until the chargesheet is filed after the specified time. Such an interpretation will have a salutary effect on the diligent progress of the trial.

(3.) It is a pity that the principles laid down by the Legislature in sec 167(2) of the Code is not carried further in fixing the time limit within which the trial should be completed failing which the undertrial prisoner would be entitled to be released on bail. It is hoped that the Legislature will give a thought to this aspect also.