BABULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-4-2013 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow in Criminal Revision No. 367/2013 cancelling the bail granted to accused applicant Nos. 1 to 6, this petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the FIR was lodged on 18-2-2013, and the applicants were taken into custody on the same date, but the challan has been filed on 22-4-2013 on 62nd day for the offences under Sections 399, 402 of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. It is also not in dispute that the bail application was filed prior to filing of the challan on 22-4-2013, however, the Trial Court extended benefit of Section 167(2) Proviso thereto. On filing the revision by State Government before the Sessions Court, it was allowed and the order granting bail passed by the Trial Court has been set aside, cancelling the bails of the applicants. However, this petition has been preferred.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicants referring the provisions of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. [Proviso (a)(ii)] contended that in the present case the said offences relate to the sentence which may be extended to 10 years as prescribed. In such case, the challan ought to be filed within 60 days from the date of arrest, otherwise the accused persons are entitled to seek liberty to statutory bail as per law. The aforesaid issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court by three Judges Bench in the case of Sayeed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD and others, 2013 CrLJ 200. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bazeer Khan @ Lalla Khan v. State of M.P., 2013 2 MPHT 272 . In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court and also by this Court.

(3.) Shri Deepak Rawal, Govt. Advocate and Shri Sisodiya, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State contends that the challan has been filed prior to passing the order of bail on the application filed by the accused persons, however, in such circumstances, the grant of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., is not permissible. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Sadhvi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 1 SCC(Cri) 311. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Sessions Court has not committed any error to cancel the bail granted by the Trial Court by setting aside the same.