AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 392 wordsB.K. Rathi,J.
This revision under Section 397, Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dated 2199 passed by the C.J.M. Etah by which he rejected the application of the applicant for bail under Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. on the ground that the chargesheet has not been submitted With in 90 days.
I have heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.T. Siddiquiand the learned A.G.A.
There is no dispute regarding the facts. The applicant was arrested on 11098 and his detention of 90 days in jail had completed on 2.01298. The applicant on 2199 moved an application for bail. The learned counsel has referred to the order, according to which at the time of presentation of application at 10.50 a.m. the Magistrate enquired from the office and came to know that the chargesheet has not come. Thereafter, the chargesheet was received on that very day and therefore, the application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. was rejected.
The learned counsel has referred to the following cases:
(1) Mohammed fqbal Madar Shekh v. State of Maharashtra; 1996 JIC 499 (SC): 1996 ACC 136.
(2) Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1377.
(3) Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryanaandanother,1977 SC Cr.R 394.
I have considered the authorities and is of the view that they are not helpful to the applicant and the argument is totally misconceived and misleading. There is no illegality in the order of the learned C.J.M. According to the applicant 90 days detention was completed on 291298. The Courts were closed on that day and thereafter reopened on 2199. Therefore, the chargesheet could have been filed in the Court on 2199. The law provides the day for filing the chargesheet, but the time has not been prescribed. If the prosecution was entitled to file the chargesheet on 21 99, it could have been filed on that day upto the close of the court hours. The argument that it should have been filed at 10.00 a.m. because the limitation expired in the vacation, is without any force. The chargesheet was, therefore, filed within time and there is no question for bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C The request for bail was rightly refused.
The revision is dismissed summarily .Revision dismissed.