HIRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) MR. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused are entitled to bail under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr. P. C. , as the challan was not filed within 90 days. Learned counsel submits that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is based on the Judgment of the Gujrat High Court reported in Umedsingh Vakmatji Jadeja and others vs. The State of Gujarat (1) which has been overruled by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Babubhai Parshottamdass Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2 ). Therefore, learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon a overruled judgment and refused to grant bail. As such the accused persons are entitled to bail. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, accused Hira Ram was arrested on 15. 10. 1988 and was produced before the Magistrate on 17. 10. 1988 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Likewise, accused Himmat Ram was arrested on 12-101988 and produced before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate on 13. 10. 1988 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The challan was filed against him on 21-1-1989 along with accused Hira Ram. Both the accused persons were charge-sheeted under Section 8/21 of the N. D. P. S. Act.

(3.) THEREFORE, in this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that by filing the challan after the expiry of 90 days the right of the accused is curtailed for entitling the accused to be released on bail cannot be sustained.