KARWARLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. the applicants urge that they arc entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167(2)(a) Cr. P.C.

(2.) The contention of the applicants is that challan in the case was presented on the 91st day of their being produced for remand for before the Judicial Magistrate and the same having not been done within 90 days, they acquired a right to be released on bail and that they are willing to furnish surety as ordered by this Court and, there fore, they be admitted to bail.

(3.) At the hearing, Shri T.R. Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicants submitted that a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. not having been filed within 90 days arrest of the applicants, the right acquired by the applicants to be admitted to bail could not be taken away even though challan may have been filed later. He also submitted that mere fact that the accused-applicants later on filed applications and the same were rejected on merits in M. Cr. C. 1976192 and 2048/ 92 both decided on 7.9.1992, would not take away accrued right of applicants of being released on bail under the proviso (supra). In support of his submissions Shri Gupta referred to a latest decision of the Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal. Desai v. State of Maharashtra1 (in Cr. A. No. 559 of 1992).