KASINATH BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and also calls in question the legality of the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Baramba in G.R. Case No.35 of 2006 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner fro grant of bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE petitioner has been taken to custody for commission of offence under Sections 498(A), 304 -B, 302, 201, 406 and 34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the petitioner, he was taken to custody on 27th February, 2006 and a preliminary charge sheet was filed on 26th June, 2006 keeping the investigation open. It is also submitted that since Final Form had not been submitted on completion of investigation, the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on completion of 90 days in custody.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the matter has been settled by this Court and there is hardly any scope for any such argument. In the case of William George Benedict alias Bhakta Das v. State of Orissa reported in 2001(II) OLR -116 a similar question arose and with reference to the earlier decisions the Court held that where, in a given case, before completion of investigation if a report is submitted styled as preliminary charge sheet, it cannot be regarded as a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, if the Court is satisfied that the investigation had in fact been completed, mere description of the charge sheet as incomplete or preliminary would not take the report out of the category of report as contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code. The Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh and others v. Jarnai Singh and another reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 277 also took a similar view. In the said reported case, relevant documents are placed before the Court before expiry of 90 days in a case under Section 304 -B of the Penal Code but certain documents had not been filed along with the challan. The Apex Court held that though it is desirable to file all documents at the time of submission of challan, merely because some documents were not filed, the effect of submission of challan cannot be taken out. In the present case, a preliminary charge sheet was filed on 26th June, 2006 and permission was sought for further investigation. In the case of William George Benedict alias Bhakta Das v. State of Orissa (supra) exactly similar situation arose and on examination of the records, the Court was satisfied that enough materials had been placed before the Court in the preliminary charge sheet to constitute a prima facie case for taking cognizance. In the present case after submission of preliminary charge sheet, the Court has also taken cognizance having found sufficient materials available in the case record. The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited some decisions of other High Courts. But in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh and others v. Jarnail Singh and another (supra), it is no more necessary to refer those decisions. I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.