NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. - (1.) THIS is the criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Cr. Misc. Appl.589/2013 for the offence under Section 382, 365, 341, 342 and 323/34 IPC whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE facts in short are that the petitioners were arrested in FIR No.62/2013 for the offences under Section 382, 365, 341, 342 and 323/34 IPC. After the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days for filing the challan in the above -mentioned offences, the petitioners moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail as the challan had not been filed within 60 days. The said application was moved on 19.11.2013. However, on the same day, an offence under Section 395 IPC was added by the investigating agency for which the time limit for filing the challan is 90 days. Accordingly, the application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was rejected and by the same order, time was extended for filing the challan to 90 days in view of the offence added under Section 395 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for setting aside the impugned order and for releasing of the petitioners submitted that the said additional offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners under Section 395 IPC is itself against the law as no prior permission was obtained by the investigating agency. Secondly, the petitioner had already filed the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., as such, his application could not have been rejected on account of adding of the offence under Section 395 IPC for which, 90 days are required for filing of the challan.
(3.) RELIANCE was placed on the judgments rendered by the various Courts. (1) Criminal Appeal Nos.1695 -1697 @ S.L.P.(CRL) Nos.6965 -6967 of 2012 titled as Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State GNCTD and Ors. (2) Ramesh Das Vs. State of Orissa (2000 Cri. L.J. 2473) (3) Singamala Sankara Nath Vs. State of A.P. (2007 Cri. L.J. 884). Heard. ;