BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of regular bail of Respondent No. 2 granted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide order dated 08.07.2010 (P-1) in case FIR No. 158 dated 10.04.2010 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the daughter of the Petitioner was found dead in her matrimonial house. She had dupatta marks on her neck and half of the chunni was hanging with the fan and the other half was lying on the bed near her dead body. The matter was informed to the police. Her statement was recorded and accordingly, FIR No. 158 dated 10.04.2010 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar against Respondent No. 2 and his parents. The Respondent No. 2 was arrested in this case on 03.05.2010 and the police did not make a request for his police remand and rather prayed for sending the accused, Sunil Kumar, in judicial remand and accordingly, he was sent to judicial custody on 03.05.2010. The challan in the said case was not filed within 60 days. The application of the accused-Sunil Kumar was moved on 08.07.2010 praying for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on the ground that a period of sixty days had expired after the accused was sent in judicial custody and the challan was not presented in the court. This bail application came up for hearing before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 08.07.2010 and the accused was ordered to be released on bail.

(3.) It is contended that the Court below has wrongly granted the bail to Respondent No. 2 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C by wrongly taking the permissible period for presentation of challan as 60 days in the offence under Section 304-B, whereas, the law in this regard, is well settled that the period for presenting the challan is 90 days and not 60 days for offence under Section 304-B IPC. Therefore, the benefit of bail to Respondent No. 2 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C could only have been granted for non-presentation of challan even after 90 days and not 60 days. In the present case, the Respondent No. 2 has been released by giving benefit of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C after a custody of only 66 days (i.e. from 03.05.2010 to 08.07.2010). Thus, the bail was granted to Respondent No. 2 by wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure It is further contended that the challan was filed after two days of the grant of bail to him which shows that the investigating agency had illegally connived with the accused and had deliberately caused the delay in presentation of challan so that he may get the concession of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., despite the fact that the challan had already been prepared and submitted by the SHO for filing before the Court on 01.06.2010 i.e. about 40 days earlier.