GURDAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel contended that in this case challan was not presented within 90 days, i.e., on 17.11.1996, the date on which petitioner was sent to judicial custody; therefore, under section 167(2) proviso (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. To support this contention, he has relied on Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court I and Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 285.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel further submitted that for the last 11 months, petitioner is in custody and his co-accused has already been granted bail.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the challan was presented after 90 days of 17.11.1996 when the petitioner was remitted to judicial custody, but the point is that after presentation of the challan whether the petitioner's right to be enlarged on bail under Section 167(2)(a) subsists or it comes to an end. Petitioner's learned counsel has relied on Aslam Babalal Desai's case (supra). No doubt in that judgment the Apex Court has observed as under :-