COURT v. The State of Maharashtra

The petitioners came to be arrested on 16/5/2006 connection C.R. No. 111 registered Haveli Police Station, Pune offence punishable Section 302 Section 34 IPC under-trial prisoners. They produced before learned Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Court 2006 No.7 Pune 17/5/2006 remanded police custody custody. thereafter granted magisterial Charge-sheet 11/8/2006 14/8/2006 submitted :2: application Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Section 309 therein contending charge-sheet produced before 11/8/2006, a charge-sheet received them, charge-sheet 11/8/2006 incomplete charge-sheet without statements witnesses and, therefore, released 14/8/2006 complete charge-sheet within 90 days. This application came to be rejected by the learned JMFC on 13/9/2006.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners Criminal Revision Application No. 713 2006 dismissed learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune 1/11/2006. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 approached Criminal Application No. 580 2007 prayed released bail. By considering investigation papers particularly statements witnesses recorded, pleased reject application 30/4/2007. This petition Article 227 Constitution Section 482 Cr.P.C. :3: quashing setting passed learned JMFC 13/9/2006 confirmed learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune Criminal Revision Application No. 713 2006 judgment 1/11/2006. Obviously, this is also an application for bail by implications.

Mr. Warunjikar the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced grounds before well, namely, a complete charge-sheet within 90 charge-sheet having 11/8/2006 incomplete and, therefore, a charge-sheet within 90 The charge-sheet 11/8/2006 petitioners produced before court. learned JMFC charge-sheet within 90 and, therefore, petitioners entitled default default such. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed view. In Baburao Raghunath Patil ors. Vs. State Maharashtra [1993 [1993 [1993 (2) (2) (2) Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. 1299], 1299] 1299] referring earlier decisions Shravan w/o Waman Nade Vs. State Maharashtra [1976 [1976 [1976 :4: Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. Mh.L.J. 654] 654] 654] Abdul Wahed Vs. State Maharashtra [1991 [1991 [1991 Mah.L.J. Mah.L.J. Mah.L.J. 1219], 1219] 1219] held, alia, granted accused released proviso (a) Sub-section (2) Section 167 Cr.P.C. absolute indefeasible right, cannot diverted obliterated filing a chargesheet filing chargesheet. a It further merely because chargesheet statutory period mentioned proviso (a) Sub-Section (2) Section 167 Cr.P.C., accused continue right of being released on bail under the siad provision.

In the instant case the chargesheet has been 11/8/2006 application presented 14/8/2006 ground chargesheet 11/8/2006 incomplete chargesheet petitioners produced before learned JMFC. The contemplated Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. claimed ground chargesheet defective incomplete subsequently release cannot :5: replaced. It absolute and, therefore, application rightly rejected. The learned APP relied Division Bench decision Rohini Mahavir Godse vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (2) Mh.L.J. 492]. [1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 492]. [1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 492]. [1996

I am satisfied that both the courts below did commit apparent record rejecting application learned JMFC cannot termed perverse. In petitioner no.1 approached Criminal Application No. 580 2007 dismissed merits 30/4/2007. second application sought agitated, merits, technical default This submitting the charge-sheet within a period of 90 days.

The petition is rejected summarily. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H.