MANNU SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 9/5/2020 by Police Station Dehat, District Bhind, in connection with Crime No. 313/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147,148,149 of IPC.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is suffering confinement since 9/5/2020 and after more that 110 days, charge-sheet has not been filed yet, whereas; charge-sheet had to be filed within 90 days (as matter pertains to Section 307 of IPC), but since the charge-sheet has not been filed within stipulated period, therefore, as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., applicant is entitled for compulsive / default bail. In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 and submits that even oral prayer is maintainable so far as benefit of default bail is concerned because it pertains to personal liberty of an individual.

(3.) He further relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 and submits that even if charge-sheet has been filed after accrual of right of default bail and during pendency of application even then the benefit of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. deserves to be given and individual is entitled to get such compulsive /default bail because it is a matter of personal liberty which is to be construed accordingly. He also relied upon the recent decision of Apex Court in the matter of S.Kasi Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police (Cr.A.No. 452/2020) and submits that default bail is the right of an individual and the limitation arrested for different provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure due to Covid-19 by Apex Court does not include provisions of default bail under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., because it is indefeasible right regarding personal liberty.