RAJESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A-1 & A-2 in Crime No.601 of 2018 of Uppal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short, 'Act 1 of 2016'). A-1 is in judicial custody since 05.07.2018 and A-2 is in judicial custody since 30.06.2018 undisputedly. A-3 was later enlarged on bail.

(2.) Heard. Perused the material on record.

(3.) A-1 and A-2, who are the petitioners herein, pending investigation from the remand period exceeded 90 days in claiming entitlement to the default bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), filed application before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.11.2018 and the same was returned and re-submitted on 02.11.2018 before the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, and ultimately after hearing, ended in dismissal on 08.11.2018 covered by the impugned order with observation of the learned Special Sessions Judge, particularly at para 6 that the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 hail from Bihar State and there is every likelihood of their absconding and difficult to secure their presence, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor in dismissing. Same is the impugnment saying an indefeasible and statutory right of entitlement to the bail for the failure of the investigation to complete within the statutory period could not have been interdicted with such an observation by the learned Special Judge instead of imposing any necessary conditions.