RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is claiming bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as he is in custody since 1.4.1997. Petitioner's learned counsel contended that in this case challan was presented on 19.6.1997 wherein the petitioner is shown in column No. 2. He filed the bail application on 2.7.1997. Learned Magistrate committed the case on 9.7.1997 and, therefore, under the law it should be held that challan was presented against the petitioner on 9.7.1997. Since the petitioner is in custody from 1.4.1997, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code. To support this contention, the learned Senior Counsel Shri R.S. Cheema has relied on an order dated 6.2.1997 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 21778-M of 1996 (Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab).

(2.) IT is also contended by the petitioner's learned counsel that two of the co-accused, his sister and mother have already been enlarged on bail. His case is identical with their case. Thus, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) UNCONTROVERTED fact is that petitioner was arrested on 1.4.1997 in connection with the investigation of F.I.R. No. 63 dated 28.3.1997 under Sections 302/304-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sunam. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of 19.6.1997. No doubt, petitioner is shown in column 2 in the charge sheet but that will not entitle him to raise plea that under the law it should be presumed that charge sheet was filed against him only on 9.7.1997 when the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions and, therefore, on this ground since the commitment order was passed after 90 days of his arrest, he is entitled to bail in default under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code. The argument is fallacious.