UTCHALA JAYARAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in Crime No. 60 of 1992 of Muddanur Police Station (P.R.C. No. 7/93) is the petitioner. He along with eight others was alleged to have committed offences under Ss. 148, 307, 302 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. Section 25(1)(b)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He states that he was arrested on 29-9-1992 and the charge-sheet was taken on file on 27-1-1993. As more than 90 days period has expired from the date of his arrest and the date of taking cognizance of the offences, he filed an application under section 167, Cr.P.C., Criminal M.P. No. 75/93, in the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. That petition was dismissed on 24-2-1993. He says that his continuance in remand after 90 days without taking cognizance of the offence amounts to illegal detention and prays that he may be released on bail.

(2.) Sri. M. Sreeramulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences within 90 days of the arrest of the petitioner, his continued detention is illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. and that subsequent order of remand under section 309(2), Cr.P.C. would not make it a valid detention, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was taken into custody on 15-10-1992 and the charge-sheet was filed on 26-11-1992 which is within the statutory period, therefore, Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. has no application. He further submits that the bail application was filed on 9-2-1993 after taking cognizance by the Magistrate on 27-1-1993; the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody is under Section 309(2), Cr.P.C. which is legal and valid; the petitioner has earlier filed a bail application which was dismissed on merits so far these he is not entitled to be released on bail.