OM PRAKASH DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section , Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer that the impugned order dated 20.6.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, may be quashed and the Petitioner may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 947 of 2008, State v. Om Prakash Dwivedi, Under Sections , , , and , I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, district Barabanki.

(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the applicant -Petitioner, Om Prakash Dwivedi, is involved in Case Crime No. 947 of 2008, Under Sections , , , and , I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, district Barabanki. The first remand was granted in the said case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, vide order dated 21.3.2009 and the case was investigated. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed against the Petitioner on 19.6.2009. An application for grant of bail was moved on behalf of the Petitioner Under Section , Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.6.2009 on the ground that the charge -sheet has been filed beyond the maximum period of 90 days and hence, he is entitled for bail. The said bail application was rejected vide impugned order dated 20.6.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, on the ground that the charge -sheet has been submitted in the Court on 90th day from the first date of remand and hence, the bail application Under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the accused has preferred this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention towards the proviso appended to Sub -section (2) of Section , Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to authorise the detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days in the instant case and since the charge -sheet has been submitted beyond the period of 90 days from the first date of remand, the Petitioner was entitled to be released on bail on the expiry of the said period of 90 days as he was prepared to furnish the bail bonds. His contention is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed illegality in computing the period of detention of 90 days and rejecting Petitioner's application for bail and hence, the impugned order dated 20.6.2009 deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: