NABAM ANNA MODI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

(2.) This is an application filed under Sec. 397 read with Ss. 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside of the impugned default bail rejection order dtd. 17/1/2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia, in Bail Application No. 354/2023, and seeking grant of statutory bail under Sec. 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. to the accused person, namely, Philip Modi, who has been arrested by the Itanagar Women Police on 25/9/2023 in connection with Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 93/2023, under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. T. Tara, that the petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Cr.P.C. seeking default bail was filed before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia on 26/12/2023 after expiry of the statutory period of 90 days on 24/12/2023. However, the petition for default bail could not be filed on 25/12/2023 because of holiday on the occasion of Christmas and immediately after the said holiday, the petition was filed on 26/12/2023 seeking default bail. But the petition was heard by the learned Court below only on 5/1/2024 and from the record, it is seen that the Charge-Sheet was filed on 3/1/2024. However, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia rejected his Bail Application No. 354/2023, vide order dtd. 17/1/2024, which was filed under Sec. 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C., with the observation that the Investigating Officer of the case has already submitted the Charge-Sheet before filing of the bail application and the accused has proposed to avail his indefeasible right of default bail only after filing of the Charge-Sheet. Further, the learned Court below failed to consider the fact that the bail application was filed on 26/12/2023 after expiry of the statutory period and the application was heard only on 5/1/2024 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Yupia and thereby failed to consider the fact that the bail application was filed 8 (eight) days prior to the filing of the ChargeSheet on 3/1/2024.