N.C.KHICHI, J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. The petitioner prays for his release on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. his request having been declined by Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 8.4.2000.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner Vinod Kumar was arrested in this case on 7.1.2000. On expiry of statutory period of 90 days for filing the challan, the petitioner moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 7.4.2000. Notice of this application was issued to the State through Assistant Public Prosecutor for 8.4.2000. However, on this date, the prosecution presented the challan. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the challan had been presented before the decision of the bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the right of the accused for being enlarged on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. does not come to an end on the filing of challan if the petition for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is still pending. In support of his contention he has relied upon Union of India v. Thamisharasi and others, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 531 and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 156 and a decision of our own High Court in Kulvinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 226.
(3.) I find myself fully agreeable with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had exercised his option under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the expiry of the statutory period for filing the challan though the application for bail remained pending. The challan was presented before the decision of the bail application. As held in the authorities cited above, the petitioner was legally entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fact that his application was disposed of after the filing of the challan.;