BHUPENDRA NANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question of some importance as to what order should be passed when in a non -cognizable case the investigating agency has neither obtained an order for extension of time for investigation nor has riled any charge -sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on May 24, 1975 by the R.P.F. Kurla, on the allegation that the railway receipt on which he obtained delivery of certain goods was forged. He was released on bond on June 2, 1975 on certain conditions. On October 6, 1975 F.I.R, was recorded against him by G.L.O. Kurla. On November 13, 1975 he was discharged on the request made by R.P.F. Kurla. But as soon as the petitioner came out of Court he was arrested on November 13, 1975, by inspector Tayde of the Railway C.I.D. Office, Poona. The proceedings continued under No. 118/75 of G.R.P. Kurla, Although his bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate before whom he was produced, the Sessions Court at Bombay, had granted him bail on November 20, 1975. Consequent upon the order the petitioner executed a bail -bond and he was attending the Court on different dates as directed.

(3.) ON July 4, 1977, although one Kshirsagar from the office of the Detective Inspector, C.I.D., Nagpur, remained present in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, he did not file a charge -sheet nor did he make any application for the discharge of the petitioner, nor did he apply for extension of time. Thus, there does not exist any order for extension of bail or cancellation of bail -bond. No order was passed by the learned Magistrate. Instead the matter was allowed to remain at that stage hanging loosely. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail on the submission that in spite of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in spite of the petitioner's readiness to stand his trial, the petitioner may be rearrested afresh and put to inconvenience.