Case of non-submissions of charge sheet within statutory period : high court of Calcutta
If the accused is unable to furnish the bail as directed by the magistrate, then on a conjoint reading of explanation I and the proviso to sub – section (2) of section 167, the continued custody of the accused even beyond the specified period in the paragraphs given in the suit will not be unauthorised and there if during that period the invest is complete and the charge sheet is filed then the co-called indefensible right of the accused would stand extinguished, was upheld by the high court of Calcutta, by the learned judge the honourable Mr. Justice Shib Sandhu in the case of Saddam Sk. V State of West Bengal C.R.R.No.517 of 2015.
The petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on 10.10.2014. Since final report was not filed within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. , the petitioner was granted bail by the Learned Judge, Special Court on 9th January, 2015 on condition that the petitioner would furnish a bond of Rs.5,000/- with one local surety to be verified by the ADM (LR) or SL & LRO, Murshidabad subject to the satisfaction of that Court is to remain in custody till 20.01.2015.
In terms of such order the petitioner furnished bail bond on 14.01.2015 but the Learned Judge, Special Court did not accept the same holding that it was not in compliance with the bail order and on that very date i.e. 14.01.2015 charge sheet under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was submitted and cognizance was also taken.
Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition on 20.01.2015 praying for modification of the order of granting bail passed on 09.01.2015 but such prayer was turned down on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by such order the instant Revisional Application was filed.
The law given by the court is well-settled on the point that the right accrued to the petitioner for non-submission of charge-sheet within the statutory period stood extinguished in view of non-filing of the bail bond asper direction of the Learned Trial Judge since the charge-sheet was submitted in the mean time.
Having regard to the contention and submission advanced by the Learned advocate appearing for the parties in the light of the decisions placed, the court stated that at the very outset that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 excepting the contingency indicated in Explanation I namely if the accused does not furnish the bail. It is in this sense it can be stated that if after expiry of the period, an application for being released on bail is filed, and the accused offers to furnish the bail and thereby avail of his indefeasible right and then an order of bail is passed on certain terms and conditions but the accused fails to furnish the bail, and at that point of time a challan is filed then possibly it can be said that the right of the accused stood extinguished.
PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer
Judgement reviewed by – Rani Banerjee