Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal Singh vs Uoi on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1162/2018
Gopal Singh S/o Bheru Singh Bhati, Aged About 48 Years, Mayur
Complex, Dak Bangle Ke Pas, 12 C Bhilwara, Presently Rajendra
Talai, Rk Colony, (Dist Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
Uoi, Through Cbn
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Rai, Special PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/07/2021
In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the
Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being
maintained for the safety of all concerned.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged
against petitioner for offence under the NDPS Act and after
investigation charge-sheet has been filed on 24.9.2018, which is
on 182th day. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
accordance with law petitioner is entitled for bail under Section
167(2) Cr. P.C.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law
given by this Court (Jaipur Bench) in Basram Meena Vs. State of
Rajasthan through PP reported in 2018(3) Cr. L.R. (Raj.)1332 and
Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 4641
as also the judgment rendered by Hon`ble Supreme Court in
(Downloaded on 26/07/2021 at 08:43:39 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1162/2018]
Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2018 (Suppl.)
Cr. L.R. (SC) 1.
Counsel for the respondent submits that though on
24.9.2018 was 182th day but submits that from 20.09.2018 to
23.09.2018 there was holiday in court and, thus, on the next
opening day charge-sheet has been filed.
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of
Opa Ram Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.2256/2010, decided on 04.8.2010); relevant para
whereof reads as follows :-
"I have considered rival submissions advanced before me.
Admittedly, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody after
arrest on 24.09.2009 and 180 days complete on 21.03.2010; but,
admittedly, on 21.03.2010 there was Sunday, therefore, it was
not possible to file challan on that date and just upon opening,
before lunch, on the next day, challan was filed by the prosecution
and these facts are not in dispute. Further, it is admitted fact of
the case that challan and application of the petitioner for release
were filed before lunch; meaning thereby, it is not a case in which
the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as per Section
167(2), Cr.P.C. because in the compelling circumstances when
there was no opportunity with the prosecution to file challan on
21.03.2010, on that date there being Sunday, then, obviously the
prosecution cannot be blamed for alleged delay in filing the
challan.
I have perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for
the petitioner. In none of the cases cited, the facts existing in the
present case are in question. It is true that as per provision to
Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. there is right with the accused for release
on bail if challan is not filed within the stipulated time. There is no
conflict upon the said proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In my opinion, the facts are altogether different
in the present case, upon which, it cannot be said that the
(Downloaded on 26/07/2021 at 08:43:39 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1162/2018]
petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that
challan has not been filed within 180 days because 180 th day was
Sunday and challan was filed on the very next day. As such it will
be deemed that challan has been filed within stipulated time.
There is thus no force in this application moved under Section
439, Cr.P.C."
This Court applying the precedent law of Opa Ram Vs. Union
of India (supra) does not wish to give any indulgence to the
present petitioner as admittedly from 20.09.2018 to 23.09.2018
the courts were closed and immediately on opening on 24.9.2018,
which is admitted by both the parties as 182th day, charge-sheet
has been filed.
No case for interference is made out. The revision petition is
dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
110-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
