This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1173/2017, whereby, the bail granted to the petitioners by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry was canceled.
2. The main ground on which the petitioners seeks for setting aside the impugned order, is that the Court below was made to believe that the charge sheet was filed within a period of 90 days.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that charge sheet was filed on 15.06.2017, which is beyond the period of 90 days and therefore the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under
section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge sheet was filed only on 15.05.2017 and that since it was returned for rectification, the same came to be re-presented on 12.06.2017 and as such, the date of filing charge sheet has to be taken as 15.05.2017 and not as 15.06.2017 in which case the charge sheet is deemed to have been filed within 90 days.
5. This is not the first case where I have come across such an infirmity. As a matter of fact, in most cases where petitions are filed under
section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking for a direction to the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet expeditiously within a time frame, submission are made that a final report has already been filed long back and on perusal of these final reports/charge sheets, it is seen that they are usually undated or ante-dated. This raises a suspicion that these final reports/charge sheets could have been ante-dated even without filing it before the jurisdictional Magistrates, in order to overcome the laches.
6. Every report under
sections 157 or 173 Cr.P.C. requires to be mandatorily sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. In order to ensure that these final reports are not ante-dated to suit the convenience of the Investigating Officer, the date on which the jurisdictional Magistrates receives the final report/charge sheet has to be taken as the date of such final report or charge sheet. The concerned Magistrates are also duty bound to receive these final reports/charge sheet by affixing the seal of the Court and mentioning the date of receipt clearly.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have produced a certified copy of the charge sheet and on perusal of the same, it is seen that though the charge sheet is dated 15.05.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry had received it on 15.06.2017 only. Just because the charge sheet carried the date as 15.05.02017, it cannot be said that the charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry on that date. In view of the seal of the Court and the learned Magistrate's signature evidencing that the charge sheet was received on 15.06.2017, it can only be concluded that the charge sheet was not laid on 15.05.2017 but only on 15.06.2017. Consequently, it becomes evident that charge sheet was not filed within a period of 90 days and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be released bail under
section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a further ground stating that the bail needs to be cancelled in view of the petitioners involvement in various heinous cases. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case in hand is one under
Section 302 IPC and the first petitioner is a history sheeted rowdy. By relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam reported in [CDJ 2017 SC 945], the learned public prosecutor submitted that in view of the seriousness of the cases in which the petitioners have involved themselves, the bail requires to be cancelled.
9. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. If at all the respondent police was under the impression that the case is very serious in nature, they ought to have filed the charge sheet in time. In the present case, inspite of the seriousness of the offence as well as the petitioners earlier involvement in various other cases, the respondent has not chosen to file the charge sheet in time. As such the trial Court has rightly invoked
section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. and granted the bail.
10. In the result, Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. and the order in Criminal M.P. No.1173 of 2017 dated 05.07.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry is set aside.
06.11.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rli M.S.RAMESH.J.
rli To
1. The Station House Officer, D Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Puducherry.
Crl.OP No.16465 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.12529 of 2017 06.11.2017