^ ^ ^TMI. HIGHCOURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR Single Be^icli: Hpn'ble ^hri^unil Kuniar Sinha, J. Criminal Revision No. 585 of 2011 1^& Shyam Lal Fhekar 8s Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ORDER Post for Order: -7, /11/2011 Sd/- i SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ^^•s1??'^..^: •NiliUri.iuniliWll ^ £Ii_- 3,VIA| HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shra, Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. APPLICANTS Criminal Revision No. 585 of 2011 1 Shyam Lal Fhekar, S/o Late Khorbahara Fhekar, aged about 48 years, R/o Gram Saeha, Vikaskhand Palari, P.S. "Kharora, TehsU & District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Ramesh Dheewar, S/o Shri Ghasiyaram Dheewar, aged. about 43 years, R/o Palari, P.S. Kharora, Tehsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Criminal Revlsion u/s 397 read with Section 401 ofThe Code -'ofCriminalProcedure, 19731 Appearance: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs'U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (3 .11.2011) (1) This revision is directed against the order dated 24ffi of September, 2011passed in Criminal Revision No. 198/2011 by the Fourth Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.). By the impugned order, the learned Session Judge has set-aside the order dated i. ' 8^9.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, whereby the applicants were released on bail u/s 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Revision No. 585 of 2011 '^. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The applicants are accused in Crime No. 232/2011, registered at Police Station Kharora u/ss 420, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. They were arrested on 10.7.2011. They were produced before the Magistrate on 10.7.2011 who remanded them to judicial custody on the same day. When the charge- sheet was not filed upto 7.9.2011, on 8.9.2011, an application u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the applicants for releasing them on bail. The learned Magistrate heard the said application and released the applicants on bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the appUcants. Admittedly the charge-sheet was Sled on 8.9.2011 after filing of the bail application in the earlier part of the day. Being aggrieved wifh the said order, the State preferred Criminal Revision No. 198/2p 11 which was allowed by the Session Court and order datgd 8.9.2011 granting bail to the applicants u/s 167 (2)Cr.P.C. was set-aside. (3) ]\<|r. Arvind Singh, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the applicahts, argued that the leamed Session Judge erred in law in holding fhat 90 days time would have been granted to the State to file the charge-sheet in this matter. He prayed for setting-aside the order passed by the leamed Session Judge. (4) Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf bf the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Session Judge. '-.-.^^•'VTS-S'^SiSS:, Criminal RevisionNo. 585 of 2011 (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Criminal Revision as also the charge-sheet produced during the course of the arguments. (6) Section 167 (2) Proviso (a) Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. - (2) Provided fhat - (a) The Magistrate inay authorize the detention of the accused person otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- -® (ii) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. (7) The above provision clearly indicates that pending investigation relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term "not less than 10 years", the Magistrate is empowered to authorize the detention of the accused in custody for not more than 90 days. For rest of the offences, period prescribed is 60 'i ' • days. (8) Section 420 IPC provides that Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to ss«; ^^Ks£:v^^ '•Sts' CriminaLReyisionNo. 585 of 2011 any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (9) Section 306 IPC provides that If any person commits suicide,; whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (10) It is, therefore, clear that u/s 306 IPC offence can be punished for a term of imprisonment which may extend to ten years which shows that the imprisonment under this Section can be for a period q^less than ten years and such cases would not be covered by clear provision of Section 167 Cr.P.C. which says about the offenpes punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and thus^ the accused in such cases can be detained in custody to the period of 60 days and not to the period of90 days u/s 167 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. (11) The Supreme Court has taken this view in a matter u/s 386 IPC in 2002 (2) Crimes 303 (SC) f Rafeev Chaudharu -Vs- State IN.C.T.) fifDelhi}. s. /''<'"-•: "•"-—!-r-K: 'S^^-^iF:^. JS^ivSaiSiif T?pS^" SS^ ^^^*':^^ 'ri<?b;.-'' ft>- ^•--~v '^ %^-. '-^ l :^SS^^\. ^ '^^^s^:';^. ^ "••^SSeS-S- ^S -^ » Ij? r-^ffii-s'. .^'g>'^s s ..y .^ 'w-'y '^ Criminal Revision No. 585 of 2011 (12) On the above discussion, the view taken by the leamed Session Judge that 90 days period shall be allowed for filing of the charge-sheet in such matters, therefore, cannot be sustained. (13) Admittedly, the charge-sheet was not Bled within 60 days in this matter and it was filed on 61st day. Therefore, the Magista-ate was right in releasing the applicants on bail u/Ls 167 (2) Cr.P.l^- (14) For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Session Judge is set-aside. The order passed by the leamed Magistrate is restored. It is stated that fhe applicants have not been arrested till date after passing of the impugned order by the Session Judge. It is, therefore, directed that they shall continue on baU already granted by the leamed Magistrate7 ^ ,— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge