M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, C.J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order refusing to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The short facts are as follows: The occurrence took place on 19th February, 2006. According to the prosecution, two accused persons, namely Ranjit Rewani and Deepak Chouhan along with two other accused came to the house of the deceased and fired shot on one Anil Kumar Yadav and Sanjay. On the way to hospital, the said Anil Kumar Yadav died and Sanjay Kumar got treated in the hospital. The case was registered on the complaint given by the brother of Anil Kumar Yadav for the offence under Section 326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As far as petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he came to the house of the deceased in another vehicle and when the other accused fired shot at the injured and deceased, in side the house, he was waiting outside the house. He was arrested and remanded on 21.2.2006 and the bail application has been filled on 22.5.2006 under Section 167(2), CrPC. Since charge -sheet was filed on 22.5.2006 i.e. 90th day, the bail application was dismissed on 23.5.2006, on the ground that charge -sheet was filed in time on 90th day and as such he is not entitled to bail under Section 167(2), CrPC. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Court of Sessions, which, in turn, set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter vide order dated 20.7.2006, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the bail application. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the APP and in the light of the order of the Session Judge, held that the chargesheet has been filed on 90th day and as such accused/petitioner could not be entitled to bail under the provisions of Section 167(2), CrPC. The said order dated 8.8.2006 is challenged in this revision petition.
(3.) THOUGH the counsel for the petitioner on the strength of various decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly 2001CriLJ1832 Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra contended that indefeasible right accrued to the accused cannot be defeated. Ultimately, counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming that he is not entitled to bail under Section 167(2), CrPC, in view of the fact that petitioner was standing outside the house in which the occurrence took place, he may be considered for bail under the provisions of Section 439, CrPC.;