SURESH MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In moving this application for bail the learned Advocate for the petitioner inter alia argues that although in this case charge-sheet has been submitted within 90 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner-accused under various Sections including Section 302, I.P.C., yet the said charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. inasmuch as neither any copy of any forensic report has been applied to the petitioner accused nor any forensic report has been forwarded under Sub-Section (5) of Section 173, Cr. P.C. along with the charge-sheet although certain articles were sent for forensic examination and report during investigation. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that unless the charge-sheet is accompanied by all the documents referred to in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 Cr. P.C. the charge-sheet cannot be treated as a valid charge-sheet and if the charge-sheet cannot be treated as valid charge-sheet it will have to be held that the investigation has not been completed and as such the accused is entitled to the benefit of statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. for non-completion of investigation within the statutory period.

(2.) In this connection the learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the Single Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M.C. Venkatareddy v. State of A.P., 1994 Cri LJ 257. It has been held by the learned Single judge in the said decision inter alia that the police report (charge-sheet)) under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. is not complete unless it is accompanied by the material papers (statements etc.) as contemplated under Section 173(5) Cr. P.C. and that if the investigation is not completed either within 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, and if the police report (charge-sheet) is not filed in complete form within the stipulated periods, the accused shall have absolute right for being released on bail subject to their readiness for furnishing sureties. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in this case relies upon the said propositions. It is argued that since the forensic report has not been forwarded in this case with the charge-sheet, the charge-sheet is therefore incomplete and since the charge-sheet in the case has not been filed in complete form within the statutory period of 90 days, the petitioner-accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. It is, however, to be noted here that in the said Andhra Pradesh case the charge-sheet which was filed within the statutory period of 90 days was returned by the Magistrate as there was some deficiency in the charge-sheet. In our present case, however, the charge-sheet which was filed within the statutory period was accepted and not returned by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also took cognizance on the charge-sheet. Therefore, unlike the facts involved in the Andhra Pradesh decision, in our present case it cannot be said that there was no charge-sheet till the expiry of this statutory period. In view of this vital factual feature of distinction, it is not necessary for us to examine in this case whether we would have agreed with each and every proposition laid down in the said Single Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Be that as it may, in our present case the charge-sheet was submitted within the statutory period and the same was accepted (and not returned) by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the same.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Narain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 506 : (1980 Cri LJ 227). In the said decision it was observed (Sic)(by) the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 that the report as envisaged by Section 173(2) has to be accompanied as required by Sub-Section (5) by all the documents and statements of the witnesses therein mentioned, and one cannot divorce the details which the report must contain as required by Sub-Section (2) from its accompaniments which are required to be submitted under Sub-Section. (5). In the said decision the Supreme Court however did not deal nor had any occasion to deal with the question as to what will be the consequence if all the documents referred to in Sub-Section (5) of Section 173 are not forwarded along with the police report submitted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 173 Cr. P.C. and whether exclusion of any such document while submitting the charge-sheet will make the charge-sheet non est or inoperative and illegal. In our present case also we are not required to deal with that question because here the only question required to be decided is whether the charge-sheet should be treated as non-existent simply because no forensic report has been forwarded with the same.