PALANISAMY ALIAS PALANI Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the Order passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai in Crl.M.P.No.1334/2002, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioners are accused in Cr.No.121/2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thali Police Station. They were remanded to custody for offences punishable under Secs.147, 148 and 302 IPC and Sec.25(A) of the Indian Arms Act. Investigation was completed and final report was filed on 26.8.2002, but the learned Magistrate returned the final report remarking that the prosecution under the Arms Act requires sanction from the authorities concerned. The petitioners filed a petition under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C on 28.8.2002 requesting the Court to release them on bail, since investigation was not concluded within a period of 90 days as per Sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the learned Magistrate is wrong in dismissing the petition since on the date when the petition was filed, no charge sheet was filed on the file of the learned Magistrate concerned. In support of his contention he also relies on a ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1994 Crl.L.J. 257 in the case of M.C. Venkatareddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the learned Judge has held as follows: