- (1.) This application has been filed for challenging and setting aside the order dated 30.06.2015 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur and order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, respectively in G.R. No. 96 of 2015, P.S. Case No. 07 of 2015 under Section 366A I.P.C. whereby the prayer for release on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C was denied.
(2.) Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner had surrendered in the aforesaid case on 02.02.2015 but the police did not submit the charge-sheet within 60 days i.e. till 03.04.2015 as mandated under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is contended that on 04.04.2015 the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C at 11:30 a.m. but the prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 04.04.2015 on the report of the G.R. Clerk. The charge-sheet had been submitted at 3:10 PM. That the petitioner preferred revision application before the learned Sessions Judge but the learned Sessions Judge as well as learned Judicial Magistrate have erred in law by mis-interpreting the settled principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 AIR(SC) 1910. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the police had failed to submit the charge-sheet within the statutory period of sixty days as envisaged in the provisions of 162(2) of Cr.P.C, hence indefeasible right for being released on bail had accrued to the accused on the 61st day accordingly the petitioner/accused filed the application stating that he was ready to furnish suitable sureties (as per Annexure-1) for being released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On the above ground it is argued that the impugned order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur affirming the order dated 04.04.2015 of the learned Judicial Magistrate is fit to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
(3.) Per conta Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P has argued that the chargesheet was submitted on the 61st day i.e. on the day of filing of the application by the petitioner/accused and the Sessions Judge have considered the settled proposition of law in view of the decision State of M.P. v. Rustam, 1995 SCC(Cri) 830 wherein it has been held that after filing of the charge-sheet right of compulsive bail does not survive, hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the present application should be dismissed.;