HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Hari Kishan, learned PP for the State and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Besides arguing the bail on merits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case it has been contended on his behalf that he was entitled to be enlarged on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. It is submitted that he was arrested on 31.7.2004 and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day in connection with the offences under Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. On the expiry of 60 days, he made an application for his release on bail on 36.9.2004, but the same was kept pending and no order was immediately passed thereon. The charge-sheet was filed on 27.10.2004. It is contended that Section 302 Indian Penal Code has been added by the I.O. in the charge-sheet without there being any valid basis for the same to save himself from the departmental action which could have been taken against him for not filing the charge-sheet within the prescribed period of 60 days applicable to the case.

(3.) Learned PP has opposed the bail application. He has contended that the charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and in view of the nature of alleged offences, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.