- (1.) This petition seeks invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) to quash order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kishtwar in a criminal revision, whereby order dated 15.2.2011 passed by LD. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar granting compulsive bail in terms of section 167(2) of the Code to the petitioner has been set aside. Heard. I have perused the record.
(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition, briefly, are these: "2.1 Petitioner came to be arrested on 16.12.2010 for his involvement in commission of offences under sections 302/109 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act in FIR No. 248/2010 of Police Station, Kishtwar. He was produced before the Magistrate and the initial remand obtained on 17.12.2010. Remand was extended from time to time and ultimately Police filed charge-sheet (challan) against him in the court of LD. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar on 15.02.2011. In the meantime, bail application on behalf of the accused seeking compulsive bail in terms of 167(2) of the Code had been moved on 14.02.2011. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took up this bail application too at the time of the filing of the charge sheet on 15.02.2011 and, besides committing the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Kishtwat, ordered release of the accused on bail in terms of section 167(2) of the Code. In granting bail to the accused, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held : "At this stage, a bail application on behalf of accused Jamal Din has also been placed on record, alleged to have been moved by accused Jamal Din on 14.2.2011. The challan in the present case against the accused persons is presented today on 15.2.2011. The accused Jamal Din as per the first remand application seems to have been arrested on 16.12.2010. The first remand of the accused was taken by the Investigating agency on 17.12.2010. If the period of remand of the accused is to be reckoned from 17.12.2010, then the period of 60 days would expire on 14.2.2011. Thus, an indefeasible right for bail in favour of the accused u/sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. has accrued. The accused as such is directed to be enlarged on bail provided he shall furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and personal bond in the like amount, failing which accused shall be kept in judicial custody." 2.2 State challenged the order dated 15.02.2011 before the LD. Sessions Judge, Kishtwar in a revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order. Hence, this petition under section 561-A. Cr.P.C."
(3.) Section 167 of the Code provides for the procedure as regards detention in custody of an accused when investigation cannot be completed within a period 24 hours as fixed under section 61 of the Code. As per the sub-section (1) of section 167, if after arrest of an accused, investigation is not likely to be completed within the period of 24 hours, the arrested accused is required to be produced before the Magistrate forthwith. Sub-section (2) of section 167 empowers the Magistrate to authorize detention of the accused in Police custody or judicial custody for an initial period not exceeding fifteen days. Proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of 167, however, empowers the Magistrate to authorize detention of the accused beyond the initial period 15 days in custody other than the police custody. The proviso at the same time lays an outer limit of sixty days to the total period of custody permissible under section 167 and provides further that on the expiry of said sixty days accused shall be released on bail, if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. If, however, the charge sheet against the accused in the case in which the arrest has been made is filed in the court within the said 60 days, further detention of the accused in connection with trial of the case would be permissible under and shall be governed by section 344 of the Code.;