The Single Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice M. G. Sewlikar opined that when charge-sheet is not filed after expiry of 90 days, accused gets indefeasible right to be released on bail. But in the present case, indefeasible right to be released on bail on account of non-filing of charge-sheet does not accrue as application for extension of time was filed before application for default bail could be filed.
Facts
The applicants along with other accused committed criminal trespass in “Rubbab”, the Perfect Men Shop and Sunil Cycle Mart and committed dacoity. Upon the lodging of the FIR, offence as aforesaid came to be registered against the applicants and other accused u/s 395, 386, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 142 of Bombay Police Act. Subsequently, offence u/s 3 of MCOC Act, 1999 was also added.
Procedural History
Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 were arrested on 20th April 2021 and 23rd April 2021 respectively. On 30th April 2021, they came to be remanded to the Magisterial Custody. Applicant Aniket Viju Kuchekar was arrested on 23rd April 2021 and was remanded to Magisterial Custody. On 12th July 2021, the Investigating Officer in the present crime intimated the Court about invocation of provisions of MCOC Act. The period of 90 days in case of applicant No. 1 was to expire on 20th July 2021. On 13th July 2021, the Investigating Officer moved an application before the Special Court for extension of time for filing of the charge-sheet. On 14th July 2021, Public Prosecutor filed a report justifying the grounds for extension of period for filing of the charge-sheet. On 22nd July 2021, applicants in Bail Application No. 1181/2021 filed application for default bail as charge-sheet was not filed and time was not extended for filing of the charge-sheet. The Special Court extended the time for filing of the charge-sheet and rejected the application for default bail. So far as applicant in Bail Application No. 1182/2021 is concerned, he filed application for default bail which came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The grounds alleged in the application are not at all sufficient for extension of period for filing of the charge-sheet. Since charge-sheet was not filed within a period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the applicants and on the date of filing of the application for statutory bail charge-sheet was not filed, the applicants were entitled to be released on statutory bail. Reliance was placed on Sachin s/o Namdeo Rathod & Ors vs State of Maharashtra, Shaikh Moin Shaikh Mehmood vs State of Maharashtra and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab.
Respondent: The application for extension of time was filed before expiry of period of 90 days. After a period of 90 days, application for statutory bail was filed. Application for extension of time was under consideration when application for statutory bail was tendered. When application for extension of time is under consideration, application for statutory bail cannot be decided. Reliance was placed on Rambeer Shokeen vs State of NCT of Delhi.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
Where application for extension of time for filing charge-sheet is filed and application for default bail is filed, the Court must ensure that application for extension of time has to be decided first. In the case at hand, both the applications were decided by one and the same order.”
The Bench further observed that:
“The learned Trial Court extended the period for filing charge-sheet by 90 days and rejected the application u/s 167(2) of the CrPC for default bail. Once the time is extended, application u/s 167(2) of the CrPC loses its efficacy. Indefeasible right to be released on bail on account of non-filing of charge-sheet does not accrue as an application for extension of time was filed before application for default bail could be filed. Indefeasible right to be released on bail would have been accrued if time was not extended for filing charge-sheet. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the application for default bail.”
Judgment
Bail Application Nos. 1182/2021 and 1187/2021 being devoid of any substance, stood rejected. None appeared for applicants in Bail Application No. 664/2021. In view of this, application stood dismissed.
Case Name: Aniket Viju Kuchekar vs The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: Bail Application No. 1182 of 2021
Bench: Justice M. G. Sewlikar
Decided on: 20th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
