JOGENDRA PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Apprehending arrest in a case registered under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners who are brother-in-law (Nandoi) and sister-in-law (married Nanad) respectively filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was first taken up on 28.3.2012 on which date, it was brought to the notice of the Court that two other co-accused persons who were also married sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandoi) namely Jogni Devi and Pramod Pandit had already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 26.3.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12433 of 2012 by this Court. Thus, it was ordered that the case be placed along with records of Cr. Misc. No. 12433 of 2012 on 29.3.2012. On 29.3.2012 when again the matter was taken up, it came to the notice of the Court that in Cr. Misc. No. 12433 of 2012 a statement had been made that the husband of the deceased namely Kamdeo Pandit had already been granted bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas in the present petition, it has been stated that the husband of the deceased is in custody since 6.1.2012. Since both the statements could not have been true as they were contradictory to each other, the petitioners were directed to file an affidavit explaining as to whether the co-accused Kamdeo Pandit was still in jail or had been released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On 2.4.2012 a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners in this regard annexing a copy of order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M., Jamui whereby the co-accused Kamdeo Pandit was granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(2.) On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 12.3.2012, the Court notices a very disturbing fact. The co-accused Kamdeo Pandit being husband of the deceased was remanded to judicial custody on 6.1.2012. On 12.3.2012, an application for bail was filed on his behalf under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. A plea was taken that even after expiry of 60 days from the date of judicial remand charge-sheet had not been submitted and, thus, the accused was entitled for compulsive bail under the mandatory provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In support of the contention advanced on behalf of the accused reliance was placed on a decision of Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court, since Sunil Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2002 1 JLJR 724 in which it has been held that in a case under Section 304B IPC, if charge-sheet is not submitted within 60 days from the date of custody of an accused, he will be entitled to bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. A copy of the petition was also served upon the D.P.O. Incharge.

(3.) It appears from the aforesaid order that the D.P.O. Incharge conceded to the prayer of the accused and expressed his inability to disagree with the aforesaid decision as no judgment of overriding effect was within his knowledge. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui called for a report from the office with regard to computation of the period of detention of the accused. The office reported that the accused is in custody since 66 days and no charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, the learned C.J.M., Jamui placing implicit reliance upon the decision in case of Sunil Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , directed the accused Kamdeo Pandit to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the court. It is to be noted here that in the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui has also taken note of the fact that the prayer for bail of accused Kamdeo Pandit had been rejected on merit by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui.