BAHADUR SINGH SIRKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 19.6.2007 passed in G.R. No. 97 of 2007 arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No. 18 of 2007 by which though the SDJM Chaibasa had granted bail to the Petitioner under Section 167(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the charge sheet could not be submitted within stipulated period of 90 days but refused to accept the bail bond of the Petitioner by order dated 19.6.2007 on the ground that the police had submitted charge sheet on 18.6.2007 at about 5 p.m. prior to furnishing of the bail bond on behalf of the Petitioner Bahadur Singh Sirka.

(2.) The short question that has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner is as to whether SDJM was within his competency to refuse the bail bond which was furnished on behalf of the Petitioner after he was admitted to bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be evident from the order dated 18.6.2007 recorded by the SDJM Chaibasa that when the final form under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be filed by the Investigating Officer inspite of the detention of the Petitioner in custody for 92 days, the SDJM directed the Petitioner to be released on his executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each and the copy of which was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa.

(3.) Sub-clauses(i) and (ii) of Clause(a) of the proviso of Section-167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that where investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, the maximum detention of the accused is for a period of 90 days; and for any other offences, the maximum detention is up to 60 days. But when a charge sheet is filed within 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused's right to be released on bail shall be considered on merit and not under sub-clauses(i) and (ii), otherwise sub-clauses are mandatory and the court has no discretion to override the proviso.