Skip to content


Raj Kumar Vs. the State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. No. 5771-M of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1979P& H80
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 167(2)
AppellantRaj Kumar
RespondentThe State of Punjab
Excerpt:
.....article 227 of the constitution. - this petition for ball for raj kumar has been pressed solely on the ground that the police failed to file the chalan within 60 days of the arrest of raj kumar petitioner, which took place on 17th june 1978. learned counsel for the state has pointed out that the petitioner was produced before the illaqa magistrate on 18th june, 1978 and the chalan was filed on 16th aug......to file the chalan within 60 days of the arrest of raj kumar petitioner, which took place on 17th june 1978. learned counsel for the state has pointed out that the petitioner was produced before the illaqa magistrate on 18th june, 1978 and the chalan was filed on 16th aug., 1978. learned counsel for the parties are agreed that if 17th june, 1978, is included, then the chalan was filed on sixty-first day of the arrest of the petitioner.2. the question for determination is, whether in the facts of this case, 17th june, 1978, has to be included or not. proviso (a) to sub-s. (2) of s. 167 of the code of criminal procedure lays down that 'no magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this section for a total period exceeding sixty days and on the expiry.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Raj Kumar and another have been chalaned under See. 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Smt. Taro in furtherance of their common intention. This petition for ball for Raj Kumar has been pressed solely on the ground that the police failed to file the chalan within 60 days of the arrest of Raj Kumar petitioner, which took place on 17th June 1978. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate on 18th June, 1978 and the chalan was filed on 16th Aug., 1978. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that if 17th June, 1978, is included, then the chalan was filed on sixty-first day of the arrest of the petitioner.

2. The question for determination is, whether in the facts of this case, 17th June, 1978, has to be included or not. Proviso (a) to sub-s. (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that 'no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this section for a total period exceeding sixty days and on the expiry of the said period of sixty days, the accused person shall he released on ball if he is prepared to furnish bail.' It is no gainsaying that it was on 18th June, 1978, that the Magistrate authorised the detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, the inclusion of 17th June, 1978, does not appear to be within the purview of the proviso. This petition, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //