DILIP OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This application has been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole petitioner for quashing of the Order dated 21-10-2000 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas, Bokaro has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under S. 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the application that the petitioner has been made an accused in Chandankyari PS Case No. 66 of 2000 for the offence under Ss. 379, 411, 414, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that illegal mining work is being carried on and the local criminals are involved in extortion of Rs. 50-100/- (from) each truck passing through Manpur Chowk and Bhojudih More. On this information, the police officials reached Manpur Chowk and saw a number of bags containing coal but the people gathered there already fled away. On enquiry from the local people they came to know that the accused persons including the petitioner were involved in the extortion and illegal mining of coal. On the basis of the said statement, the FIR was lodged against the accused persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended and remanded in the case but charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days of the remand. Thereafter, a petition for release u/S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, but the learned Magistrate rejected the petition by the impugned order on a wrong assumption that for offence u/S. 386 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment provided is 10 years and submission of charge-sheet in such cases is a period for 90 days. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in rejecting the petition on wrong assumption that 90 days will be applicable in the case under S. 386 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the petitioner is entitled to be released for the offence u/S. 386, IPC, if the charge-sheet within 60 days has not been submitted. It is also submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed in this case, though 60 days in the custody has already been completed from the day of remand. The learned counsel also relied upon the cases reported in (1997) 1 East Cri. C 774 (Sanjeev Kumar Tulsyan alias Pappu v. State of Bihar) and (1998) 1 East Cri C 603 (Mrinal Yadav v. State). It was clearly held in both the cases that if a charge-sheet is not filed within a prescribed period of 60 days, the accused is entitled to bail and the maximum sentence u/S. 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act is upto 10 years and as such charge-sheet accordingly could have been submitted within 60 days from the date of remand of the petitioner.