ROMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been apprehended in FIR No. 294 registered under Section 302/34, RPC 4/25 Indian Arms Act. Petitioner No. 1 has been arrested on 14-1-1994 and petitioner No. 2 on 13-1-1994. The challan (charge-sheet) by the concerned police against the petitioners was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu on 18th of March, 1994 and is pending before that Court.

(2.) That the petitioners moved an application for bail on 4-6-1994 before the learned Sessions Judge. The bail was claimed on two grounds : (i) As the police had failed to complete investigation within sixty days of the arrest of the petitioners, therefore petitioners were entitled to be granted bail in terms of Section 167 of the Cr. P.C.; (ii) that even on facts there was no prima facie case against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 17-8-1994 dismissed the bail application and rejected the contentions of the petitioners. The petitioners have now approached this Court for bail on the sole ground that since admittedly, challan was produced against them after the expiry of period of sixty days, as prescribed under Section 167(2)(a) of the Cr. P.C., they were entitled to grant of bail.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before the arguments of the learned counsel are appreciated, it will be profitable to reproduce the relevant extract of the said provision hereinbelow :-