PRADEEP KUMAR DEO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr. P. C.' in short) is directed against the order dated 26-6-2001 passed by the S. D. J. M. (P), Rourkela, (Annexure-1) rejecting the applications for bail filed under S. 167(2), Cr. P. C. by the present petitioners, who are accused of the offences under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' hereinafter) read with Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, in G. R. Case No. 70 of 2001, arising out of Bondamunda P. S. Case No. 3 dated 9-1-2001, and the order dated 28-7-2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2001 (Annexure-2), confirming the order in Annexure-1.

(2.) The short facts relevant for disposal of the present application are that on 9-1-2001 the Manager of United Bank of India, Bondamunda Branch, lodged an F.I.R. at the Bondamunda Police Station alleging that on that day at about 1.55 P. M. while the banking operation was going on, a group of dacoits armed with fire arms like pistol, stengun, etc. entered into the Bank, frightened the customers and the Bank staff at the gun-point, assaulted the Manager and asked him to open the strong room and the chest and took away about Rs.6,00,000.00 from the strong room and fled away along with the cash in a jeep. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and forwarded to custody. Two separate applications were filed by accused present petitioners (Md. Khurshid Alam and Pradeep Kumar Deo) under S. 167 (2), Cr. P. C. alleging therein that as the charge-sheet had not been filed within the mandatory period of 120 days, their custody was illegal and they had an indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail and a valuable statutory right had accrued in their favour.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners' custody for 120 days was completed on 14-5-2001. As the investigation had not been completed, on 11-5-2001 the Investigating Officer submitted an incomplete charge-sheet with a prayer for continuing the investigation and on 14-5-2001, part file with charge-sheet case record was submitted to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela, to be tagged with the original case record, which was sent in Crl. Misc. Case No. 196 of 2001. The further case of the petitioners is that on 5-6-2001 the L. C. R. was received from the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge and the matter was posted to 12-6-2001 for further consideration. On 13-6-2001 the petitioners filed two separate applications for bail under S. 167 (2) of the Cr. P. C. which were ultimately rejected by the learned S. D. J. M. by order dated 26-6-2001 (Annexure-1) and on the same day the S. D. J. M. took cognizance of the offences as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as the cognizance was taken beyond the period of 120 days, the petitioners were entitled to get the statutory benefit available to them under S.167(2) of the Cr. P. C.