February 14, 2019:
On Wednesday, the Bench comprising of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, emphasizes on the importance of scrutiny by a public prosecutor of the reasons given by the IO for seeking extension of time in filing Charge-sheet.
Facts of the present case are that the charge sheet was filed on 15.11.2018, within the extended period of 90 days, whereas it is contended by the counsel for the respondents that if the respondents are entitled to default bail, they should not be compelled to go through the rigours of applying for a regular bail, post filing of the charge sheet.
The first document placed before the trial court was an application/report filed by the IO, containing the signature of the public prosecutor. The second document, which purports to be the report of the public prosecutor, has also been filed in the form of an application.
The three judge bench observes, "The first document, purporting to be the application of the IO, contains the reasons for such extended period of investigation but the second document details out the grounds in extenso and cannot be said to be only a mere reproduction of what is stated in the first document. It cannot, thus, be said that there has been complete absence of application of mind by the public prosecutor."
Relying upon its earlier decision in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602, the Supreme court observes, "....the public prosecutor, has an option to agree or disagree with the reasons given by the IO for seeking extension of time but in the facts of the present case, the second document in the form of an application shows scrutiny of the first document and thereafter details grounds and expanded reasons for the requirement of further time to complete the investigation."
The Court states that as per the “compelling reasons” enunciated in Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr. (2009) 17 SCC 631, "....undoubtedly the request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor but since there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the respondents to the benefit of a default bail when in substance there has been an application of mind."
The Bench is unable to persuade itself to agree with the conclusions of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court which holds that the respondents will not be entitled to the benefit of default bail.
While setting aside High Court's order, the Bench clarifies, "...since the charge-sheet has been filed, any observations made by us herein, would not, in any manner, affect the right of the respondents to seek regular bail from the trial court."
Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs SURENDRA PUNDLIK GADLING & ORS._13-Feb-2019(Downloadable PDF)
Picture Source :
