JAMMU, Apr 20: Special Judge Anti-corruption Jammu Sanjeev Gupta today granted default bail to Kewal Sharma, ex-PRO to the then Deputy Chief Minister as State Vigilance Organization failed to present challan within 60 days.
After hearing Advocate Vikram Sharma for the ex-PRO, Special Judge Anti-corruption observed, “the petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of bail under the proviso to the Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the specified period of 60 days”.
Senior Prosecuting Officer appearing for the Vigilance Organization conceded that the statutory period provided under proviso to the Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure has expired but the investigation has not been completed.
“The case diary produced by investigating officer of the case DySP H L Pandita shows that accused was taken into custody on February 20, 2017. However, the investigating officer has expressed his inability to file charge sheet in the court after the expiry of 60 days and has filed an application for judicial remand of the accused”, Special Judge Anticorruption said.
The court further observed, “when an application for bail is filed by an accused for enforcement of his indefeasible right alleged to have been accrued in his favour on account of default on the part of the investigating agency in completion of the investigation within the specified period, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate/court to dispose of it forthwith”.
With these observations court accepted the application for bail and directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the stipulated period. “The petitioner shall furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs one lakh with a personal bond of the same amount. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency and appear before the IO as and when directed to do so. He shall not contact any prosecution witness or tamper with the evidence”, the court said.