- (1.) Accused-Petitioner has laid the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 Cr.P.C., ventilating his afflictions against impugned orders dated 28th of May 2016 and 8th of June 2016, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nokha, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court') and Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner (for short, 'learned Court below') respectively, under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Bhagirath Soni lodged an FIR at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner against petitioner and two others charging them for offences under Section 498A, 304-B and 120-B IPC. The FIR was registered on 20th of February 2016 bearing No.80/2016 and considering seriousness of the offences, which were nonbailable, the accused-petitioner was apprehended and produced before learned trial Court on 28th of February 2016. The learned trial Court, thereafter, upon consideration of application of prosecution for remand, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody upto 8th of March 2016 which was extended from time to time. In that background, as per petitioner, when chargesheet in the matter is not filed within 90 days in adherence of the mandatory provision contained in sub-sec.(2) proviso (a) (i) of Section 167 Cr.P.C, he made endeavour before the learned trial Court for enlarging him on bail. The learned trial Court considered the submissions of the accused and by its order dated 28th of May 2016 declined the prayer on the anvil of sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. as well as on merits. While adverting to merits of the case, the learned trial Court observed that petitioner is charged for a serious offence under Section 304-B IPC, therefore, it is not desirable to enlarge him on bail. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner by taking shelter of mandatory provision under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is also examined by the learned trial Court. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, for declining the said prayer learned trial Court observed that chargesheet in the matter was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, i.e. on 26th of May 2016.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, petitioner made endeavour for seeking bail before the learned Court below by submitting an application under Section 167(2) read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned Court below, by its order dated 8th of June 2016, while fully concurring with the learned trial Court, rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. With a view to substantiate his plea on the anvil of mandatory provision contained under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., it is averred in the petition that factum of submission of chargesheet before the learned trial Court is not discernible from the ordersheets of the learned trial Court inasmuch as ordersheets dated 26th of May 2016 and 1s t of June 2016 clearly and unequivocally indicate that result of the investigation is awaited. For substantiating his positive assertion, petitioner has also placed on record certified copy of ordersheets dated 26th of May 2016 and 1s t of June 2016. That apart, it is also submitted by the petitioner that certified copy of the final report, allegedly submitted before the learned trial Court on 26th of May 2016, nowhere reveals any endorsement of the Court that the same was presented on 26th of May 2016. Categorizing this sort of discrepancy 'irreconcilable', the petitioner has made an attempt to castigate the prosecution for manipulation and maneuvering to get the chargesheet filed by antedating it in order to thwart right of the petitioner accrued under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. For assailing impugned orders, precisely, the same grounds are elaborated by the petitioner in the petition craving desired reliefs.
(3.) On behalf of respondent State, reply to the misc. petition is submitted. In the reply, the State has urged with full emphasis that chargesheet in the matter was filed before learned trial Court on 26th of May 2016, i.e. within the stipulated period of 90 days, and therefore, no case for interference is made out. Adverting to the merits of the case, it is also submitted by the State that after thorough investigation, the investigating agency has prima facie found that offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B IPC is made out against the petitioner, as such even on merits petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs claimed. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, has strenuously urged that legislature has envisaged mandatory provision under sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. for maximum period of detention of an accused and if final report is not filed by the investigating agency within that stipulated period, accused is entitled to be released on bail upon his furnishing requisite bail bonds. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel would contend that in the instant case ordersheets of the learned trial Court speak volumes about the fact that final report/chargesheet in the matter against the petitioner was not filed by 1s t of June 2016 and therefore both the impugned orders are vulnerable and petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail after expiry of his detention beyond 90 days, in terms of sub-sec.(2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Lastly, learned counsel submits that it is a clear case of manipulation at the behest of investigating agency in projecting submission of final report before the learned trial Court within the stipulated period to jeopardize the petitioner of his sacrosanct fundamental right of personal liberty, which cannot be countenanced in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the insinuations hurled by petitioner against the investigating agency are bereft of any merit inasmuch as chargesheet in the matter was filed before the Court within the stipulated period of 90 days. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the statement of facts recorded concurrently by both the Courts below, that chargesheet in the matter against petitioner was filed on 26th of May 2016, cannot be made subject matter of judicial review in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. Elaborating his submissions, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that there is a strong presumption about correctness and truthfulness of the facts recorded in a judicial order and mere oral assertion by the counsel for the petitioner cannot alter the trite legal position founded on principles of practice and procedure. Learned Public Prosecutor has lastly urged that ordersheet dated 26th of May 2016 recorded by the trial Court overleaf the challan submitted by the investigating agency, duly signed by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court, speak volumes about the fact that same was presented before the Court on 26th of May 2016.;