Allowed

Vishambhar Das v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2017CRLMB/15770/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur allowed the bail application of a rape and attempt to murder accused. The judge held that despite initial allegations of charge sheet delay and subsequent addition of charges, the 60-day limitation period should be respected, relying on an Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Vishambhar Das Vs State of Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 15770 / 2017

¶3

Vishambhar Das S/o Shri Sitaram Das B/c Ramanandi Sadhu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ramjanki Mandir OBC Colony, Near Gyan Vihar Enginiring Collage Mahal Jagatpura, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. (At Present Confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Upman with Mr.Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.R.S.Rathore PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

27/11/2017

¶12

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶13

F.I.R. No.559/2017, was registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 305, 306 and 384 I.P.C.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially the police has investigated the case for offence under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 7.9.2017 and after he moved the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on 8.11.2017 that offence under Section 305, 384 IPC was added by the police to deprive the petitioner of the liberty of bail. My attention has been drawn towards the remand papers of the co-accused dated 8.11.2017, wherein, the offence mentioned was under Sections

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-15770/2017]

¶17

306 and 384 IPC and at that time also offence under Section 305 IPC was not added.

¶18

It is contended that the investigation took place for offence under Section 306 IPC. Charge-sheet has not been filed within sixty days of the arrest of the petitioner and subsequently if some other section is added that could not come in way of grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan 2002 Criminal (SC) 10, wherein offences under MCOC Act was added after twenty one days of the investigation for offence under Section 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 of IPC. The Apex Court held that the investigation into the offence for which a person was arrested would continue to relate to the same offence, even if other offence is added and hence the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) cannot be extended.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has placed reliance on “Pawan Jogi Vs. State of Rajasthan” decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 28.7.2015 , wherein Section 305 of IPC was added in lieu of Section 306 of IPC. The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and held that period of ninety days would be applicable.

¶21

I have considered the contentions. In the present case, in hand five persons have died by consuming poison. One of the family member took loan from lenders and gave it to other person through the petitioner. On demand being raised by the lenders the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMB-15770/2017]

¶24

deceased committed suicide after poisoning his family members including a minor child. The police initially proceeded under Section 306 of IPC and was required to file the charge-sheet within sixty days after the date of arrest. The sixty days period expired on 6.11.2017 and application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.2017 other co-accused was arrested later and in his remind order the offence mentioned was Section 306, 384 of IPC.

¶25

In view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharti Chandmal Verma @ Ayesha Khan (supra) and the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within sixty days. 9. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 10. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶27

Seema/30

Vishambhar Das v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishambhar Das v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaloo Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

Sonpal Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Rathore Vs State Food and Civil Supplyors

Mukesh Chand Takhar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Lokesh Sharma Vs State Home Departmentors

Rajveer Singh Peeploda and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.