C KAMRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We had heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the accused-petitioners and the two Opposite-Parties at length yesterday. We have perused the materials on record, as also the decisions referred to by the Learned Advocates for the contending parties.

(2.) The accused-petitioners have prayed for bail mainly on the ground that the investigation of the relevant case had not been concluded within the prescribed period of 90 days, and that the charge-sheet submitted is not a conclusive one as it is mentioned therein that a supplementary charge-sheet would be submitted in the matter.

(3.) The nature of the case would appear from the order of the court below dated 10.3.94, which we do not propose to re-iterate. It appears from the said order that the accused-petitioners were arrested on 27.11.94 and the charge-sheet in the relevant case was signed by the Investigating officer on 24.2.95, which was filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 27.2.95. It is thus submitted by the Learned Advocates for the accused-petitioners that the charge-sheet was submitted on the 92nd day of their arrest, and they are entitled to bail as a matter of course in view of the provisions of Section 167, Cr. P.C. It has, however, been brought to our notice by the Learned Advocate for the Opposite-Party No. 2 that the Charge-sheet had been filed before the court on 27.2.95, as 25th and 26th of February, 1995 were holidays at Andaman, being Saturday and Sunday respectively. That being so, it cannot be held that the charge-sheet was submitted before the court beyond the prescribed period. The Learned Advocates for the Opposite-Party No. 1 had further submitted, referring us to Section 57 of the Cr. P.C., that the transit period for forwarding the charge-sheet to the Court would be available to the Investigating Agency. And, on that score as well it could not be said that the charge-sheet was submitted before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned beyond the prescribed period. The Learned Advocate for the Opposite-Party No. 1 had also referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. The State, through C.B.I. Bombay, 1995 Cr. L.J 477 to contend that the accused-petitioners would neither be entitled to bail in view of the submission of charge-sheet in the relevant case.