CH Venkat Rao vs State

The petitioner is accused of murdering one Smt Papamma on 20th March, 2019. He was arrested on the same day and is in custody since then. Upon completion of investigation, police report (charge-sheet) under section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed before the relevant Court on 6th June, 2019 and the case committed to sessions.

The petitioner had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge who proceeded to reject the prayer on 26th August, 2019 and fixed 24th September, 2019 for framing of charge. However, the charge could not be framed which prompted the petitioner once again to pray for bail. Such prayer for bail was also rejected by an order dated 01st October, 2019 of the Sessions Judge. By such order, the Sessions Judge fixed 17th October, 2019 for framing of charge. However, because of non-availability of report from the CFSL, Kolkata, the charge has not yet been framed.

Aggrieved by his detention in custody since 20th March, 2019, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

We have heard Mr. Krishna Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Mandal, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the case diary.

Although, it is true that liberty of an individual should not be curtailed because of any lapse on the part of the State machinery in obtaining the report of the CFSL, Kolkata, we are inclined to spurn the prayer for bail made by the petitioner having regard to the fact that there are at least four eye witnesses of the alleged murder. Their statements, recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, are such that it would not be proper, at least at this stage, to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

The Investigating Agency shall write to the CFSL for obtaining the report at the earliest. We have no doubt in our mind that as soon as the report is received, the Sessions Judge shall proceed to frame the charge against the petitioner.

We are informed by Mr. Mandal that, even in respect of offences committed in 2014, the reports from the CFSL, Kolkata are awaited.

In that view of the matter, we leave it open to the Sessions Judge to exercise his discretion and proceed in accordance with law, if at all the report of the CFSL, Kolkata is not transmitted within the next three months.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail, if at all no progress is made in respect of transmission of the report of the CFSL, Kolkata, resulting in delay in framing of the charge.