NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the order dated 15.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, granting bail to the petitioner, in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, was set aside and he was ordered to be taken into custody.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2013 in a case arising out of FIR No.59, dated 07.03.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, registered at Police Station, Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula, and was remanded to judicial custody on 15.03.2013. Thereafter on 14.06.2013, the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail in terms of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., at 8.45 a.m before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, and the report from the concerned criminal Ahlmad was sought. It was reported by the criminal Ahlmad that the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was not presented till 08.45 a.m. However, the charge -sheet was presented on 14.06.2013 at 09.30 a.m. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor granted bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the said order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the State by way of Criminal Revision Petition and the same was accepted and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside without appreciating the facts and the law in correct perspective. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sayed Mohd.Ahmed Kazmi vs. State, GNCTD and others, 2012 (4) RCR(Criminal) 875. Learned counsel for the State submits that by assigning cogent reasons, the learned Revisional Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, and as such, no interference is called for by this Court. He further submits that the charge -sheet (report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) was presented in court, before the petitioner was actually ordered to be released on bail and as such, he had lost the right to be released on bail.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.;