CHANDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly by which he has refused to release the revisionist on bail under proviso Section 167 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure

(2.) Brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed along with the memo of revision and which are relevant for deciding this revision are that on the basis of a first information report lodged by one Smt. Nemsri W/o Sompal regarding the murder of her husband Sompal by Dharampal, Chandra Pal, Brijpal and Onkar on 12.7.2010 at P.S. Vithari Chainpur, District Bareilly Case Crime No. 648 of 2010, under Section 307, 302 I.P.C. was registered against the aforementioned four persons. The revisionist Chandra Pal who is one of the accused in the aforesaid case was arrested on 27.7.2010 ans sent to jail on 28.7.2010. Ninty days period stipulated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing of the police report was completed on 26.10.2010 but no charge sheet was filed. Consequently, an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly with a prayer that the revisionist is ready to furnish bail bonds and as such he may be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure as no police report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer within the stipulated period. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the revisionist for being released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that non-filing of police report within 90 days of the revisionist's detention entitled him to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Magistrate committed a patent illegality in rejecting the revisionist's bail application on the ground that the charge sheet had been submitted on the date when the revisionist had enforced his right under proviso to Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure