NEETU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEY are heard on the application for grant of regular bail to the applicant who is accused of the offences under sections 363, 394, 372 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act in Crime No. 92/94 P.S., Jamul, Dist. Durg. The applicant is alleged to have kidnapped the prosecutrix at the point of dagger and committed rape on her and torn the blouse of the mother's sister of the prosecutrix, when she intervened.

(2.) SHRI R.N. Tiwari, counsel for the applicant has contended that the charge -sheet was filed in this case on 90th day, when the applicant was not produced before the Court from the jail custody. The copy of the charge -sheet was not served to the applicant even in jail, on that date or on any subsequent date. The applicant, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail, under section 167 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contention of Shri Tiwari is not well founded. The mandate of section 167 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the charge -sheet must be submitted before the Court within 60 or 90 days as the case may be. This section does not lay down that police report and documents must be supplied to the accused on the date of submission of the charge -sheet. The accused is entitled to the copy of the police report and the documents under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is altogether a quite different provision of law.

(3.) AS regards, the merit of the application is concerned, there are sufficient materials against the applicant in the case diary therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. Certified copy by given on payment of requisite copying fees.