CRM-M- No. 13465 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 13465 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 9, 2011 Dr. Surinder Pal Kaushal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, AAG, Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking bail in FIR No.169 dated 30.8.2010, under Section 420,406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 29.01.2011 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and till date, challan has not been submitted before the Cout. He has further stated that challan ought to have been submitted within 60 days from the date of the custody as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel, while CRM-M- No. 13465 of 2011 (O&M) 2 placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 453, as well as, judgment of this Court in the matter of Som Nath and another vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. M-10219 of 2011, decided on 28.04.2011 has vehemently argued that if challan is not submitted within the statutory period, then petitioner has legal right to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that challan was presented on 21.4.2011 after a stipulated period while petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 29.1.2011. He has further submitted that since challan was submitted by the police after the stipulated period as provided under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of custody of the petitioners, therefore, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. This Court in Som Nath and another vs. State of Punjab decided on 28.4.2011 has held as under :- “In view of the above dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, question stands answered. If challan is not filed within statutory period and is filed during the pendency of the bail application then rights accrued to the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code shall not stand curtailed. Now, questions comes as to whether, this Court should direct the accused to move before Magistrate for seeking bail for non-filing of the challan within statutory period or this Court can enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code straightaway for not filing of the challan within the statutory period? In the humble opinion of this Court, it would be futile exercise to ask the accused to approach the Magistrate first. If argument is advanced that even during the pendency of the bail CRM-M- No. 13465 of 2011 (O&M) 3 application before this Court, statutory period provided under Section 167(2) of the Code for filing the challan has expired. This Court can take note of the law and can consider the bail application itself without asking the accused to approach the Magistrate first. In the opinion of this Court, hypertechnical view should not be adopted to refuse the relief if accused is otherwise legally entitled for.” Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is directed to be allowed. Let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. (Alok Singh) Judge May 9, 2011 Anand