BHALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused of commission of an offence of murder, the petitioner seeks his release on bail.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having perusted the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, we notice that it may not appropriately be said at this stage that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was apprehended on Nov. 30, 1985 and a preliminary charge-sheet was fitted in the Court on Feb. 27, 1986 and thus investigation had not been completed within ninety days from the date of arrest of the petitioner. Although the Investigating Officer has styled the charge-sheet as a preliminary one, we notice on a perusal of the case diary that the investigation had been completed. The only step that remainted to be taken was to send the material objects for chemical examination with a forwarding letter of the Magistrate. It cannot, therefore, be said that the investigation had not been completed by Feb. 27, 1986. As a matter of fact, later the Investigating Officer had intimated to the Court to treat the preliminary charge-sheet as the charge-sheet in the case. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been detained in custody beyond a period of ninety days from the date of his arrest owing to incomplete investigation. We are not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.