VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application has been filed under Sec. 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.9306/2020 vide its order dtd. 11/9/2020 in F.I.R. No.236/2020 registered at Police Station

(2.) Brahmpuri District Jaipur City (North) for offences punishable under Sec. 376 of I.P.C. and under Ss. 3, 4, 5-D and 6 of POCSO Act. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ complainant are that : (I) accused-respondent- Rohit Kumar was arrested on 9/4/2020 and was produced before the learned trial Court on 10/4/2020. Police filed charge-sheet on 9/7/2020 for offences punishable under Ss. 5-E and 6 of POCSO Act and under Ss. 376-AB and 202 of I.P.C. A bail application to this effect was filed by accused seeking benefit under Sec. 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed within the period of 90-days and, therefore, accused was entitled for grant of statutory bail under Sec. 167 (2) Cr.P.C. However, the learned trial Court, vide its order dtd. 9/7/2020 (Annexure-2), dismissed the aforesaid application by holding that the charge-sheet was filed within a period of 90-days. (II) accused-respondent- Rohit Kumar had challenged the aforesaid order of rejection of bail before this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.9306/2020 and the said application was allowed, vide its order dtd. 11/9/2020 (Annexure-3). (III) in the present case, the accused was arrested on 9/4/2020 and was produced before the Court of Magistrate on 10/4/2020, therefore, the period was to start from the intervening night of 10/4/2020 and 11/4/2020, it means the calculation was to start from 11/4/2020 and the filing of charge-sheet on 9/7/2020 was within the period of 90-days, therefore, the accused was not entitled to bail on the ground mentioned under Sec. 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. and (IV) the impugned bail order dtd. 11/9/2020 was not passed on merits or demerits of the case but solely on the technical ground mentioned under Sec. 167 (2) Cr.P.C., therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has not opposed the present bail cancellation application.