LAWS(MPH)-2011-4-8

WAHID SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On April 15, 2011
WAHID SIDDIQUI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/ accused filed this revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (State EOIB), Jabalpur whereby he dismissed the application of petitioners / accused filed under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the petitioners/accused are in custody since 25.08.2010 in connection with Crime No. 271/2010 registered at policestation Madan Mahal, Jabalpur under sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 409, 471 and 120-B of IPC. They completed their 60 days of custody on 24.10.2010. Since the petitioners/accused are neither bank employees nor Government/Civil servant, therefore, there is no question of having committed any offence under Section 409 of IPC. It is also pleaded that they did not forge any documents or use such document as genuine or valuable security and therefore they cannot be said to have committed any offence under section 467, 468 and 471. It is further pleaded that they may be alleged to commit offence under section 420 or other offence which are only punishable up to the imprisonment of 7 years, therefore, they deserve bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. As no chargesheet was filed against them within 60 days of their arrest, they moved application under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the learned Magistrate dismissed their application, Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Magistrate committed illegality in observing that Court cannot find out the facts from the case diary as to what particular offence is made out against a particular accused. He further submitted that there was no evidence on record in regard to criminal conspiracy regarding the offence under sections 409 and 467 IPC, therefore, learned Magistrate committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and prays for grant of bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.