(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State.
(2.) THE Applicants seek bail on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the Applicants ought to have been granted bail since indefeasible right has been granted in favour of the Applicants on account of chargesheet not being filed in a statutory period as laid down under section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Secondly, it is submitted that though the Learned Magistrate had granted bail on account of non-filing of the chargesheet within 90 days, the said order dated 26.8.2007 was recalled on 27.8.2007 by the Learned Magistrate and the earlier order was modified after it was recalled without giving any notice to the Applicant herein. It is submitted that, therefore, the said order of modification without notice to the Applicants is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the Sessions Court had also not taken into consideration the aforesaid as prayed and has erred in rejecting the Applicants' application for bail.
(3.) IN my view, the Learned Magistrate clearly erred in recalling the order without giving notice to the Applicants. In his earlier order dated 26.8.2007, he has recorded that the Nazir had given a time till 5.25 p.m. in the evening no chargesheet has been filed. Mere entry in the outward register of the police station would not be sufficient to prove that in fact, chargesheet was filed in the Court on that day. It is difficult to believe that Nazir Department of the court would not give acknowledgment to the police after having received the chargesheet. In the present case, the Senior Clerk of the said court also has submitted that the chargesheet had not been received. The said endorsement has been made in the original record of the Court. So, therefore, apart from the report of the Nazir, the Senior Clerk also has given the said report.