RAJVEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Rajveer, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended which could not be controverted by the learned PP that the alleged offences under Sections 402, 307 and 339 Penal Code and Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986 in respect whereof challan has been filed against the petitioner are punishable with a term of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be applicable to case. This Court in the case of Malkhan and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC 778 the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi 2001(3) Criminal Law Journal 2941 has clearly held that where the alleged offence is punishable with a term of imprisonment which may less than 10 years, the provisions of Sec. 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be applicable if the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed maximum period of 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused and as such he shall be entitled to bail as of right if he applied for and is willing to furnish the bail bonds as per the order of the court. Thus, the authorities clearly support the contention of the learned counsel.

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner was arrested on 29.6,2004. The charge sheet was filed on 27.9.2004 i.e. after the expiry of period of 60 days. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to bail and the learned court below was in error in refusing to enlarge him on bail.