HAPPY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment, the above-mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.10.2013, whereby application moved by them for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking bail as challan had not been presented within the requisite period. The trial Court had erred in rejecting the bail application moved by the petitioners on the ground that before the decision of the application moved by the petitioner, challan had already been filed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Union of India through CBI vs. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, 2014 3 RCR(Cri) 534. Paras 4 and 41 of the judgment read as under:-

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in the present case, challan was presented on the same day when the application was moved by the petitioners under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioners. In the present case, petitioners had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on 3.10.2013. Ahlmad made a report that the challan had not been presented till 10.00 a.m. However, the challan was presented thereafter on the same day.