# Pankaj Kumar Yadav Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 851
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2638 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-kumar-yadav-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-48855
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 167(2) (a)(ii) - Statutory
Bail - if charge-sheet against the accused
is not filed within stipulated period of time
and before filing the charge-sheet if
accused applied for statutory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. then, he has to be
released on bail irrespective of the fact
that whether his bail application pending
at the time of subsequent filing of the
chargesheet - The right to be released on
default
bail
continues
to
remain
enforceable if the accused has applied for
such bail, notwithstanding subsequent
filing of the chargesheet or filing of the
chargesheet during the interregnum when
challenge to the rejection of the bail
application is pending before a higher
Court - for availing the benefit u/s 167(2)
CrP.C., it is necessary to apply bail before
submission of charge-sheet - if accused
fails to apply bail before submission of
charge-sheet then he cannot be benefited
under Section 167(2) CrP.C. (Para 12, 14)

Revisionist arrested on 16.04.2022 for offence
u/s 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC - none of the
offence punishable for more than seven years -
sixty days from the date of arrest expired on
15.06.2022 (after excluding first date of remand
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
i.e. 16.04.2022) - an application u/s 167(2)
Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist on 17.06.2022 -
charge-sheet filed on same day i.e. on
17.06.2022 but at 4.00 PM - as before deciding
the bail application charge-sheet was submitted
therefore bail application of the revisionist u/s
167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by trial court -
Held - although, charge-sheet was submitted on
same day i.e on 17.06.2022 but at about 4.00
P.M. i.e. after the bail application moved by the
revisionist under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. -
indisputably, charge-sheet did not file before
filing the bail application of the revisionist u/s
167(2) Cr.P.C. within stipulated period of sixty
days, which was expiring on 15.06.2022 and
before submission of charge-sheet revisionist
applied for default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
therefore revisionist has to be released on
statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1 Sanjay Dutt Vs St. through C.B.I., Bombay (II)
(1994) 5 SCC 410

## Text

7 All. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
851
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence, for which such
person could be tried together with the
accused, the Court may proceed against
such person for the offence he has
committed.

18. All that is required by the
Court for invoking its powers under Section
319 Cr.P.C.is to be satisfied that from the
evidence adduced before it, a person
against whom no charge had been framed,
but whose complicity appears to be clear,
should be tried together with the accused.
It is also clear that the discretion is left to
the Court to take a decision on the matter.

19. In the instant case, although,
the appellants were named in the F.I.R.,
they were not named as accused in the
charge-sheet during the trial. However,
P.W.1 in his evidence, has named the
appellants as persons who were involved in
the incident causing the death of Brijesh
Kumar Singh and injuries to Manvender
Singh. Despite the above, the trial Court,
on two separate occasions, rejected the
prayer made by the Respondent No.2 for
summoning the appellants herein under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court, after
considering the evidence of P.W.1, Kamlesh
Singh, thought it necessary for the
appellants to be summoned."

19. In view of the above, I do not find
any error in the order dated 21.5.2022 of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court
No.6,
Varanasi,
allowing
the
application of the O.P. No.2 under Section
319 Cr.P.C.and summoning the revisionists
to face the trial along with other accused.

20. The criminal revision has no merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it
open for the revisionists to avail remedy
available to them under the law.
----------
(2022)07ILR A851
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2638 of 2022

Pankaj Kumar Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, Sri Dashrath Lal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Hari Bans Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 167(2) (a)(ii) - Statutory
Bail - if charge-sheet against the accused
is not filed within stipulated period of time
and before filing the charge-sheet if
accused applied for statutory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. then, he has to be
released on bail irrespective of the fact
that whether his bail application pending
at the time of subsequent filing of the
chargesheet - The right to be released on
default
bail
continues
to
remain
enforceable if the accused has applied for
such bail, notwithstanding subsequent
filing of the chargesheet or filing of the
chargesheet during the interregnum when
challenge to the rejection of the bail
application is pending before a higher
Court - for availing the benefit u/s 167(2)
CrP.C., it is necessary to apply bail before
submission of charge-sheet - if accused
fails to apply bail before submission of
charge-sheet then he cannot be benefited
under Section 167(2) CrP.C. (Para 12, 14)

Revisionist arrested on 16.04.2022 for offence
u/s 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC - none of the
offence punishable for more than seven years -
sixty days from the date of arrest expired on
15.06.2022 (after excluding first date of remand
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
i.e. 16.04.2022) - an application u/s 167(2)
Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist on 17.06.2022 -
charge-sheet filed on same day i.e. on
17.06.2022 but at 4.00 PM - as before deciding
the bail application charge-sheet was submitted
therefore bail application of the revisionist u/s
167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by trial court -
Held - although, charge-sheet was submitted on
same day i.e on 17.06.2022 but at about 4.00
P.M. i.e. after the bail application moved by the
revisionist under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. -
indisputably, charge-sheet did not file before
filing the bail application of the revisionist u/s
167(2) Cr.P.C. within stipulated period of sixty
days, which was expiring on 15.06.2022 and
before submission of charge-sheet revisionist
applied for default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
therefore revisionist has to be released on
statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1 Sanjay Dutt Vs St. through C.B.I., Bombay (II)
(1994) 5 SCC 410

2. Bikramjit Singh Vs St. of Pun. (2020) 10 SCC
616.

3. Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs St. of Mah. (2011)
10 SCC 445

4. Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs St. of 3 of 11
Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1910

5. M. Ravindran Vs Intelligence Officer, Director
of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Hari
Bans Singh, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record of the
case.

2. The instant revision has been
moved by the revisionist against the order
dated 17.06.2022 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5,
Allahabad in Case Crime No. 167 of 2022,
under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, 452
IPC,
Police
Station
Jhunsi,
District
Prayagraj by which, Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail
application moved by the revisionist under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Filtering out unnecessary details,
the basic facts, which are relevant for the
purpose of present revision is that FIR of
the present case was lodged on 16.04.2022
against the revisionist and one another
under Sections 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC at
Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj.
Pursuant to the FIR dated 16.04.2022
revisionist was arrested on 16.04.2022 and
since then he is in custody in the present
matter. As, the matter relates to Sections
308, 323, 504, 452 IPC and none of the
offence is punishable for more than seven
years and as charge-sheet did not submit in
the court within sixty days from the date of
arrest
of
revisionist,
therefore,
an
application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
was
moved
by
the
revisionist
on
17.06.2022 praying that as sixty days have
already been lapsed since his arrest and till
date no charge-sheet has been submitted,
therefore, revisionist is entitled to be
released on statutory bail provided under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but court below on
same day i.e. 17.06.2022 dismissed his bail
application moved under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. Revisionist challenged the order
dated 17.06.2022 passed by the court below
in the instant revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that admittedly in the present
matter, revisionist is in custody in the
present case since 16.04.2022 and none of
the offence are having punishment of more
7 All. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
853
than seven years, therefore, as per section
167(2) Cr.P.C. within sixty days from the
date of arrest of revisionist, investigation
must have been completed and chargesheet must have been filed within sixty
days i.e. latest by 15.06.2022 but as, till
17.06.2022, charge-sheet in the present
matter did not file, therefore, on 17.06.2022
an indefeasible right to release the
revisionist on bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. accrued, therefore, revisionist on
17.06.2022 filed bail application before the
court concerned under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. but his bail application was wrongly
dismissed by the court below, therefore,
order dated 17.06.2022 is illegal and liable
to be set aside and revisionist should be
released on statutory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the law is settled that if
within stipulated period of time, chargesheet has not been submitted and before
submission of charge-sheet, if accused
applied for bail then, he has to be released
on bail by virtue of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist placed
reliance on the judgment of the constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through C.B.I.,
Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410 and three
judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2020) 10 SCC 616. Learned counsel for
the revisionist further submitted that the
court below after placing the reliance in the
case of Pragyna Singh Thakur Vs. State
of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445
dismissed the bail application of revisionist
moved under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,
therefore, committed an illegality of law as
Pragyna Singh Thakur case (supra) has
been held per incurium by three judge
Bench of the Apex Court in case of
Bikramjit Singh (supra). Learned counsel
for the revisionist next submitted that as
revisionist has applied for bail even before
filing of the charge-sheet, therefore, his bail
application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
cannot be dismissed on the ground that
before filing of the charge-sheet his bail
application could not be decided, therefore,
order dated 17.06.2022 is illegal and is
liable to be set aside and revisionist is
entitled to be released on statutory bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
informant and learned AGA opposed the
prayer and submitted that there is no
illegality in the order dated 17.06.2022
passed by the court below and as before
deciding the bail application of the
revisionist, charge-sheet was submitted in
the
court
concerned,
therefore,
bail
application of the revisionist moved under
Section
167(2)
Cr.P.C.
was
rightly
dismissed by the court below.

7. Learned counsel for the informant
placed reliance on the judgment of Pragyna
Singh Thakur case (supra). He further
placed reliance on the judgment of Uday
Mohanlal
Acharya
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1910. Learned
counsel for the informant vehemently
argued that as on the same day when bail
application was moved, charge-sheet has
been submitted and till the submission of
charge-sheet,
bail
application
of
the
revisionist moved under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. was pending, therefore, after
submission of the charge-sheet revisionist
could not be released on statutory bail
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and there is
no illegality in the order dated 17.06.2022
passed by the court below. He further
submitted that the order dated 17.06.2022
is based on Pragyna Singh Thakur case
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra) of the Apex Court and law laid
down in that case was binding upon the
Magistrate, therefore, if Magistrate after
relying upon the judgment of Pragyna
Singh Thakur case (supra) dismissed the
bail application of the revisionist moved
under
Section
167(2)
Cr.P.C.
then,
Magistrate did not commit any illegality
and order dated 17.06.2022 cannot be held
to be illegal.

8. I have given anxious consideration
on the rival submission and perused the
record of the case.

9. Admitted facts of the case is that
against revisionist, FIR was lodged on
16.04.2022 under Sections 308, 323, 504,
452 IPC at Police Station Jhunsi, District
Prayagraj at Case Crime No. 167 of 2022
and revisionist is in jail since 16.04.2022
pursuant to the FIR dated 16.04.2022 and
none of the offence is punishable with
more than seven years. Therefore, as per
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet
of the present case should have been filed
within sixty days from the date of arrest
of revisionist and the sixty days was
expiring on 15.06.2022 (after excluding
first date of remand i.e. 16.04.2022) [See
M. Ravindran Vs. Intelligence Officer,
Director of Revenue Intelligence (2021) 2
SCC 485]. Therefore, after 15.06.2022,
the indefeasible right in favour of the
accused accrued under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. to release him on default bail and
revisionist moved statutory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 17.06.2022 and
till then no charge-sheet was submitted.
Although, charge-sheet was submitted on
same day i.e on 17.06.2022 but at about
4.00 PM i.e. after the bail application
moved by the revisionist under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

10. To decide the present dispute, it is
necessary to visit Section 167 Cr.P.C.,
which runs as follows:-

"167.
Procedure
when
investigation cannot be completed in twenty
four hours.

(1) Whenever any person is
arrested and detained in custody, and it
appears that the investigation cannot be
completed within the period of twenty- four
hours fixed by section 57, and there are
grounds for believing that the accusation or
information is well- founded, the officer in
charge of the police station or the police
officer making the investigation, if he is not
below the rank of sub- inspector, shall
forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial
Magistrate a copy of the entries in the
diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the
case, and shall at the same time forward
the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an
accused person is forwarded under this
section may, whether he has or has not
jurisdiction to try the case, from time to
time, authorise the detention of the accused
in such custody as such Magistrate thinks
fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in
the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to
try the case or commit it for trial, and
considers further detention unnecessary, he
may order the accused to be forwarded to a
Magistrate
having
such
jurisdiction:
Provided that-

(a) the Magistrate may authorise
the detention of the accused person,
otherwise than in the custody of the police,
beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for
doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise
the detention of the accused person in
custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding,-
7 All. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
855

(i)
ninety
days,
where
the
investigation
relates
to
an
offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for
life or imprisonment for a term of not less
than ten years;

(ii)
sixty
days,
where
the
investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may
be, the accused person shall be released on
bail if he is prepared to and does furnish
bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub- section shall be deemed to
be so released under the provisions of
Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that
Chapter;]

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise
detention of the accused in custody of the
police under this section unless the accused
is produced before him in person for the
first time and subsequently every time till
the accused remains in the custody of the
police, but the Magistrate may extend
further detention in judicial custody on
production of the accused either in person
or through the medium of electronic video
linkage;]

(c) no Magistrate of the second
class, not specially empowered in this
behalf by the High Court, shall authorise
detention in the custody of the police.

Explanation I.- For the avoidance
of doubts, it is hereby declared that,
notwithstanding the expiry of the period
specified in paragraph (a), the accused
shall be detained in custody so long as he
does not furnish bail;].

Explanation II.- If any question
arises whether an accused person was
produced before the Magistrate as required
under clause (b), the production of the
accused person may be proved by his
signature
on
the
order
authorising
detention or by the order certified by the
Magistrate as to production of the accused
person through the medium of electronic
video linkage, as the case may be.]

[Provided further that in case of
a women under eighteen years of age, the
detention shall be authorised to be in the
custody of a remand home or recognise
social institution].

(2A) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub- section (1) or sub-
section (2), the officer in charge of the
police station or the police officer making
the investigation, if he is not below the rank
of a sub- inspector, may, where a Judicial
Magistrate is not available, transmit to the
nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the
powers of a Judicial Magistrate or
Metropolitan
Magistrate
have
been
conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary
hereinafter prescribed relating to the case,
and shall, at the same time, forward the
accused to such Executive Magistrate, and
thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing,
authorise the detention of the accused
person in such custody as he may think fit
for a term not exceeding seven days in the
aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period
of detention so authorised, the accused
person shall be released on bail except
where an order for further detention of the
accused person has been made by a
Magistrate competent to make such order;
and, where an order for such further
detention is made, the period during which
the accused person was detained in custody
under the orders made by an Executive
Magistrate under this sub- section, shall be
taken into account in computing the period
specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to
sub-section (2);

Provided that before the expiry of
the
period
aforesaid,
the
Executive
Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest
Judicial Magistrate the record of the case
together with a copy of the entries in the
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
diary relating to the case which was
transmitted to him by the office in charge of
the police station or the police officer
making the investigation, as the case may
be.

(3) A Magistrate authorising
under this section detention in the custody
of the police shall record his reasons for so
doing.

(4) Any Magistrate other than the
Chief Judicial Magistrate making such
order shall forward a copy of his order,
with his reasons for making it, to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate.

(5) If in any case triable by a
Magistrate
as
a
summons-case,
the
investigation is not concluded within a
period of six months for the date on which
the accused was arrested, the Magistrate
shall make an order stopping further
investigation into the offence unless the
officer making the investigation satisfies
the Magistrate that for special reasons and
in the interests of justice the continuation of
the investigation beyond the period of six
months is necessary.

(6) Where any order stopping
further investigation into an offence has
been made under sub-section (5), the
Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an
application made to him or otherwise, that
further investigation into the offence ought
to be made, vacate the order made under
sub-section
(5)
and
direct
further
investigation to be made into the offence
subject to such directions with regard to
bail and other matters as he may specify."

11. The constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in Sanjay Dutt case (supra)
observed in paragraph no. 53(2)(b) as:-

"(2)(b) The 'indefeasible right' of
the accused to be released on bail in
accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the
TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in default of
completion of the investigation and filing of
the challan within the time allowed, as held
in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which
ensures to, and is enforceable by the
accused only from the time of default till
the filing of the challan and it does not
survive or remain enforceable on the
challan being filed. If the accused applies
for bail under this provision on expiry of
the period of 180 days or the extended
period, as the case may be, then he has to
be released on bail forthwith. The accused,
so released on bail may be arrested and
committed to custody according to-the
provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The right of the accused to be
released on bail after filing of the challan,
notwithstanding the default in filing it
within the time allowed, is governed from
the time of filing of the challan only by the
provisions relating to the grant of bail
applicable at that stage."

12. Thus, from the perusal of the
Constitution Bench judgement of Sanjay
Dutt case (supra) if charge-sheet within
stipulated period of time is not submitted
then indefeasible right of accused to release
him on bail under Section 167(2) CrP.C.
accrues but this will remain effective only
till submission of charge-sheet and if
accused failed to apply bail before
submission of charge-sheet then he cannot
be benefited under Section 167(2) CrP.C.
and for availing the benefit under Section
167(2) CrP.C., it is necessary for the
accused to apply bail before submission of
charge-sheet.

13. Recently, three judge Bench of the
Apex Court in case of M. Ravindran Vs.
Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue
Intelligence (2021) 2 SCC 485 after
7 All. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
857
discussing the matter in detail observed in
paragraph no. 25 as:-

"25.1 Once the accused files an
application for bail under the Proviso to
Section 167(2) he is deemed to have
''availed of' or enforced his right to be
released on default bail, accruing after
expiry of the stipulated time limit for
investigation. Thus, if the accused applies
for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read
with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon
expiry of 180 days or the extended period,
as the case may be, the Court must release
him
on
bail
forthwith
without
any
unnecessary delay after getting necessary
information from the public prosecutor, as
mentioned supra. Such prompt action will
restrict the prosecution from frustrating the
legislative mandate to release the accused
on bail in case of default by the
investigating agency.

25.2 The right to be released on
default bail continues to remain enforceable
if the accused has applied for such bail,
notwithstanding
pendency
of
the
bail
application; or subsequent filing of the
chargesheet or a report seeking extension of
time by the prosecution before the Court; or
filing
of
the
chargesheet
during
the
interregnum when challenge to the rejection
of the bail application is pending before a
higher Court.

25.3 However, where the accused fails
to apply for default bail when the right accrues to
him, and subsequently a chargesheet, additional
complaint or a report seeking extension of time is
preferred before the Magistrate, the right to
default bail would be extinguished. The
Magistrate would be at liberty to take
cognizance of the case or grant further time for
completion of the investigation, as the case may
be, though the accused may still be released on
bail under other provisions of the CrPC.

25.4 Notwithstanding the order of
default bail passed by the Court, by virtue of
Explanation I to Section 167(2), the actual
release of the accused from custody is
contingent on the directions passed by the
competent Court granting bail. If the accused
fails to furnish bail and/or comply with the
terms and conditions of the bail order within
the time stipulated by the Court, his
continued detention in custody is valid."

14. Therefore, the issue is not resintegra and it has been settled by firstly
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Sanjay Dutt case (supra) and thereafter three
judges Bench of Apex Court in the case of M.
Ravindran (supra). The three judges Bench in
case of M. Ravindran (supra) followed the
decision of Constitution Bench and held that
if charge-sheet against the accused is not filed
within stipulated period of time and before
filing the charge-sheet if accused applied for
statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
then, he has to be released on bail irrespective
of the fact that whether his bail application
pending at the time of subsequent filing of the
charge-sheet.

15. In case at hand, the court below
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in Pragyna Singh Thakur case (supra) and
held that as before taking decision on the
bail application moved by the revisionist
under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., charge-sheet
has been filed, therefore, he cannot be
released on default bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C., but while observing this,
court below failed to consider the fact that
the case of Pragyna Singh Thakur (supra)
has been held per incurium by three judge
Bench of the Apex Court in case of
Bikramjit Singh (supra) on which reliance
was placed by the learned counsel for the
revisionist. In Bikramjit Singh case (supra)
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
three judge Bench of the Apex Court after
discussing the matter in detail observed as:-

"On a careful reading of the
aforesaid two paragraphs, we think, the twoJudge Bench in Pragyna Singh Thakur case
(2011) 10 SCC 445 has somewhat in a similar
matter stated the same. As long as the majority
view occupies the field it is a binding
precedent. That apart, it has been followed by
a three- Judge Bench in Sayed Mohd. Ahmad
Kazmi case (2012) 12 SCC 1. Keeping in view
the principle stated in Sayed Mohd. Ahmad
Kazmi case(2012) 12 SCC 1 which is based on
three-Judge Bench decision in Uday Mohanlal
Acharya case (2001) 5 SCC 453, we are
obliged to conclude and hold that the principle
laid down in paras 54 and 58 of Pragyna
Singh Thakur case (2011) 10 SCC 445 (which
has been emphasised by us: see paras 42 and
43 above) does not state the correct principle
of law. It can clearly be stated that in view of
the subsequent decision of a larger Bench that
cannot be treated to be good law. Our view
finds support from the decision in Union of
India v. Arviva Industries India Ltd (2014) 3
SCC 159."

16. Therefore, law laid down in the case
of Pragyna Singh Thakur (supra), has already
been declared per incurium by three judges
Bench in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra),
therefore, no reliance can be placed on
Pragyna Singh Thakur case (supra) while
deciding the default bail application of the
revisionist moved under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C., therefore, court below committed
error of law while placing reliance on Pragyna
Singh Thakur case (supra).

17. Record of the present case clearly
suggest that charge-sheet in the present matter
was filed on 17.06.2022 i.e. on same day when
mandatory bail application was moved by the
revisionist under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and
impugned order shows that charge-sheet was
filed at 4.00 PM. Thus, indisputably, chargesheet did not file before filing the bail
application of the revisionist under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C.

18. As, in the present case within
stipulated period of sixty days, which was
expiring on 15.06.2022, charge-sheet did not
file and before submission of charge-sheet
revisionist applied for default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., therefore in view of the
law laid down by the Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in case of Sanjay Dutt (supra),
three judges Bench in the case of Bikramjit
Singh (supra) and three judge Bench in case of
M. Ravindran (supra) revisionist has to be
released on statutory bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C.

19.

Therefore,
from
the
above
discussion,
in
my
view,
order
dated
17.06.2022 is illegal and is liable to be set
aside and revisionist is entitled to be released
on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

20. Accordingly, the present revision is
allowed. The order dated 17.06.2022 is hereby
set-aside and revisionist is directed to be
released on statutory bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case.
----------
(2022)07ILR A858
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Government Appeal No. 328 of 2022

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Chandraveer ...Respondent