Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anupam Chakravarti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46165 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANUPAM CHAKRAVARTI, S/O LATE SHRI ARVIND
CHAKRAVARTI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
SHATABDIPURAM, MUSKAN HEIGHTS KE PEECHE,
VIJAY NAGAR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ARAKSHI
KENDRA VIJAY NAGAR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(STATE BY SHRI ATMARAM BAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE - AND
OBJECTOR BY SHRI VIPUL VARDHAN JAIN - ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 19.02.2024
Pronounced on: 21.02.2024
This application having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
In this petition, filed under Section 482 read with Section 167(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant has challenged the impugned
order passed by Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, vide its
order dated 5.10.2023 in Criminal Revision No.357/2023 wherein the order
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, on 21.9.2023 in RCT
No.8341/2023 was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the petition are that the applicant was arrested and in
custody in Crime No.995/2023 registered at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, district
Jabalpur, for the crime of Sections 420, 209 and 120-B IPC. Although the
charge-sheet was filed by that police station in the related crime number but the
copy of charge-sheet was not supplied to applicant despite the expiry of period
of 90 days from his arrest. It was, therefore, requested that he be released on
default bail. The JMFC Court dismissed the application against which criminal
revision was filed but that too was dismissed under the impugned order.
3. The grounds raised in this petition are that both the courts below failed
to appreciate the correct legal principles applicable in the case; it was incumbent
upon the prosecution to supply the copy of charge-sheet to the accused within
a maximum period of 90 days from his arrest but that copy has not been
supplied to him till date. Co-accused Niti Chakravarti, who has been given the
benefit of anticipatory bail, has also not been supplied with the copy of charge-
sheet. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders under consideration be set aside
and the applicant be released on default bail.
4. The petition has been opposed not only by the State but also by the
counsel appearing on behalf of objector Vijay Bharat Kumbhare.
5. Arguments of respective counsel for the parties have been heard and
the documents submitted along with the application have been perused.
6. The short question involved here is whether the prosecution is under a
legal liability to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed period under Section
167(2) Cr.P..C. or is it necessary that the copy of the charge-sheet should also
be supplied to the applicant within that prescribed period. In this case, the
charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC. The
offence of Section 409 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment and the
investigation in this case was required to be completed within 90 days from the
date of arrest of applicant. There is no dispute on the point that the charge-sheet
was filed within that prescribed period of 90 days.
7. This court has to examine whether the right of default bail has accrued
to applicant for the reason that he was not supplied with the copy of charge-
sheet within the said period of 90 days and for this, the applicant has relied
upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court delivered in Goverdhan
and three others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No.1535/1992,
decided on 22.7.1992). In rebuttal, counsel for the objector has relied upon
the decision of another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bhole alias Bholesh
v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1992) SCC Online MP 209 . Apparently, this
decision was delivered on 15.7.1992 i.e. prior to the citation quoted by
applicant and it was held in the case of Bhole alias Bholesh (Supra) that the
relevant provisions of law do not provide that the documents should be
supplied to the accused within a period of 90 days from his arrest. Section 173
Cr.P.C. merely says that the copy of charge-sheet should be supplied without
delay which was held to be "without reasonable delay" in the cited case law.
Therefore, in the light of this judgment of Bhole alias Bholesh (Supra) decided
earlier in time by the Single Bench of this Court, the subsequent judgment of a
Bench of same strength cannot be invoked as the law of precedent applies
here.
8. In the light of aforesaid facts of the case and also the applicable
proposition on the basis of citations relied upon by both the sides, this
application for default bail filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed
for the reason that there was no legal requirement to supply the copy of charge-
sheet to the applicant within a period of 90 days from his arrest.
9. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.02.22 19:11:53 +05'30'
