(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in Special Case No.306 of 2016, whereby the learned Special Judge, Patna under the provisions of the SC/ST Act has refused to accept the bail bond of the petitioner on the ground that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case and as such the petitioner lost his indefeasible right under Sec. 167(2) Crimial P.C. to get bail.
(2.) The petitioner is an accused in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.14 of 2013. The petitioner filed a petition on 112016 before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Patna under the provisions of the SC/ST Act for mandatory bail under Sec. 167(2) Crimial P.C. as the investigation was not completed and charge-sheet was not submitted by the police till that date. The bail petition was not disposed of on the very same day by the learned Special Judge, rather it was disposed of on 13.12016 and bail was granted to the petitioner which would be evident from the order at Annexure-7. The petitioner produced the bail bond on the same day which would be evident from the bail bond signed by the petitioner in jail and enclosed as Annexure-6. The bail bond of the petitioner was not entertained on 13.12016, rather the same was entertained on 15.12016 and prior to that the charge-sheet was received on the basis whereof cognizance was taken on 14.12016 and thereafter, the learned Special Judge refused to accept the bail bond on 15.12016 on the ground that since charge-sheet has already been received and cognizance taken hence the petitioner lost his indefeasible right of bail under Sec. 167(2) Crimial P.C. in view of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(3) PLJR SC 81. The learned court below has quoted the relevant conclusions in the impugned order, which reads as follows:-
(3.) From bare perusal of the aforesaid conditions it reveals that the learned court below did not comply the direction no.4 and 6 aforesaid as the court below did not dispose of the prayer for bail on the very same day. In the circumstances, the indefeasible right of the petitioner could not have been defeated by the subsequent order. Secondly, the bail bond of the petitioner at Annexure-6 reveals that the same was ready on 112.2016 itself. Hence, there was no reason for the petitioner to not to file said bail bond to get his immediate release. The court below has again committed error in not accepting the bail bond before charge-sheet was filed in the case on 14.12.2016 and cognizance was taken. The bail bond of the petitioner was considered on 15.12.2016 which is also against the mandate of judgment in Uday Mohan Lal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).