Facts
The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2025 for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a 17-year-old victim
Source reference: p. 2-3He was remanded to judicial custody for an offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which carries a statutory detention period of 90 days, expiring on 12.12.2025
Source reference: p. 3The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in the court's office on 27.10.2025, and a judicial order dated 31.10.2025 recorded that the charge sheet was "put up" before the Court
Source reference: p. 3, 5However, formal cognizance was only taken on 08.01.2026
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner sought default bail, arguing that since cognizance was taken after the 90-day period, the charge sheet should be deemed filed only on the date of cognizance
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the filing of a charge sheet within the statutory period, regardless of the date of cognizance, extinguishes the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC/Section 187(3) BNSS
Source reference: p. 5-72. Whether a judicial order recording the submission of a charge sheet serves as sufficient evidence of "filing" even if the Presiding Officer did not initial the police register as per the Assam Police Manual
Source reference: p. 8-10Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 167(2) of the CrPC (now Section 187(3) of the BNSS) and Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act (by analogy) concerning the statutory period for investigation
Source reference: p. 8Reliance was placed on Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, which held that filing a charge sheet is sufficient compliance and the date of cognizance is immaterial for default bail
Source reference: p. 5-6Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, which reaffirmed that the right to statutory bail arises only if the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period
Source reference: p. 6-8The court distinguished Samsun Noor Alias Samsul Noor v. The State of Assam regarding the procedural requirements of the Assam Police Manual
Source reference: p. 4, 9Reasoning
The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Section 167(2) CrPC is to ensure investigation is completed within a specific timeframe; once completed and the report is filed, the right to default bail is lost
Source reference: p. 8In this case, although the petitioner relied on Samsun Noor to argue that the charge sheet is only "filed" when the Magistrate initials the register, the court found that a judicial order (dated 31.10.2025) explicitly recording the submission of the charge sheet constitutes "equally acceptable evidence" of filing
Source reference: p. 8-9The court further clarified that the Assam Police Manual consists of executive instructions for police conduct and does not override judicial records or the Criminal Rules and Orders of the High Court
Source reference: p. 10Since the judicial record proved the charge sheet was presented to the court on 31.10.2025—well before the 12.12.2025 deadline—the statutory requirement was satisfied
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The court answered the issues in the negative for the petitioner, holding that the date of cognizance is irrelevant to the determination of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC
The court held that the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period as evidenced by the judicial order dated 31.10.2025; consequently, the petitioner’s "indefeasible right" to default bail never accrued
Source reference: p. 9-10The application for bail was rejected and the petition dismissed
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Sri Dhajen Chiring Alias GogoivsThe State Of Assam
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in