t mOH COuRT OF eHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. 14S QV 2007 APPLICANT RESFONDENT Vs. Kiuiwar Bai State of Ctiliattisgarh O R D E R Post tor 7-8-2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge irii im'" SB : HON'BLE SHRI DHTOBNDRA MISHRA. J. CR.M.P,_N0^14S_QF^Wl7 APPLICANT V-. RESPONDBNT 'i, Shyam Kunwar Bai W/o. Anuk Singh, Agcd about 45 ycars, Caste-Gonde, R/o. A/iUage- Madanpur, Injko, Thaiia & Tehsil- Patnalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) i. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station Housc Officcr, P.8. Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) OKmas. J^-.QS.O?) rt-esent: Miss. Shannaa Singhai, counsel for the applicant. Mr. G.K. Berivpal, Dy. A.G. forfhe State. Heard. 'The applicant has filed fhis petition under Section 482 of fheCr.P.C. against theimpugned order dated 26.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpxir in CTiminal Revision No.02/2007 whereby the Criminal Revision of applicant against the order dafed 15.01.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patthalgaon in Criminal Case No. 14/2007 has'&eenrejected. . ' Brief facts of tlle case are thaf the applicaat was arrested tn connection with offence zmder Section 397 of the IPC on 17.10.2006 and fhereafter, she was remanded bv the learaied Magistrate to judieialcustodyon 18.10.2006. An application under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.G. was fUed by the applicant before the Magistrate for her release from jail on the grotmd that the prosecution has failed to file tlle chai^e sheet within the statutory penod of 90 days, however thesame was rejected by the leaitied Magistrate vide order of Aruiexure A-2. Against the said order a revision was prefeired by the applicant, which was alsb dismis^d 'by the impii^ied order with a finding that -- since the aceused was rem^nded on 18.10.2006 the penod of r- . - ..' : ._ —. : ' • - * '• : '', •- •• !'. • •i ^Jimitation tbr the purpose of Section 167(2) of the Code_^Q] fe?^ -2-- commence fi-om 19.10.2006 and therefore, fhe chai^e sheet filed on 16.01.2007 was wiuun the prescribed period of lunitatton of90 days. i' Leamed counsel-for the applicant subinitted fhat fhe revisional Court has couiiuitted illegality m_ computing the period of detention, as fhe period of Umitation cominences flx)m fhe date on which the Judicial Magistrate remands the accused to iudicial custodv. In fhe uistant.case if fhe coinputation is made from fhe date of remand, in that case fhe charee sheet was adiaittedty filed on 16m of-Janu&rv 2007 i.e. onthe 91st day and in fhe circuinstanGes it G'annot be held that the charge sheet filed by tfae prosecution on 16.01.2007 was within 90 days, as provided under Section 167 (2) ofthe Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in fhe matter of State of Maharastra Vs. Mrs. BheiraU Chandmal Varmadh Auesha.Khan 12002 CrtminalLaw Joumal 57S SC). On the other nand leamed counsel for the respondent/Sfate has supported the unpugned order. In fhe matter of Mrs. Bharti Chandmal Verma(a), Ayesha Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 that fhe respondent accused is entitted for bail on account of the default of ,fhe investigatirtg agency to complete fhe investigation wifhin 90 days from the date ofthe first remand of fhe respondent. In fhe light of fhe above bindingjudgment of fhe Apex Court, fhe impugnea orders passed by bofh the Courts below cannot be sustained. The accused was remanded in iudicial custody on 18.10.2006 aad the charge sheet has been filed ori 16.01.2007 i.e. on91st dav. In the result the petitk>n' sueceeds. The jOrder dated| *;: 26.02.2007 passed by feamed A.dditional Ses^bns,<.Jitid|ge|||i?||^ ; L..: '^ - y^'^, i^all^^H:^^'; Jashpur, pistrict Jashpnr as aKp the order dated 15,i()|@2§)^BiS^ •xftltsiSB?S—:3j^ : E :0*r -%- proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code dated 15.01.2007 is aUowed and it is directed that on applicant's fumishmg a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties ofthe like amount to the satisfaction ofthe trial Coiirt concemed, she be released on beuL /~'~ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ 1 ! f!