HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this bail application under S. 439 read with 167(2) Cr. P.C. solely on legal ground. He moved an application before learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who rejected the same on 2-5-98.

(2.) Brief facts may be summarised as under :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 27-4-1998 i.e. on 92nd day. The petitioner submitted the application under S. 167(2), Cr. P.C. to exercise his right of bail, but it was kept pending despite the applications filed to call for the record and decide the bail application. The application was kept pending and the police filed charge-sheet at 12-45 p.m. It is contended that the petitioner had already filed the aforesaid application before the submission of the charge-sheet, he was entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not correctly applied the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Rustam and Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (supra). The learned counsel for the petitioner also sought support from 1986 Cr. L.J. 2081 (Delhi) (Powell Nawawa Ogechi v. The State (Delhi Administration)) for his contention that S. 10 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable in such a situation arising under S. 167(2), Cr. P.C. He further referred to 1984 RLR 474, Shishpal v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Raj Cri C 315 : (1982 Cri LJ 2319) (Narayan and Co. v. The State of Rajasthan and 1998 (1) RCD 184 (Raj), Roop Chand v. State of Rajasthan to support his contention that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate even after filing the challan took cognizance on 28-4-98 and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail because the cognizance was taken after 90 days i.e. on 92nd day.