- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. has been directed against the order dated 2-1-99 passed by the C. J. M. Etah by which he rejected the application of the applicant for bail under Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. on the ground that the chargesheet has not been submitted With in 90 days.
(2.) I have heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S. T. Siddiquiand the learned A. G. A. There is no dispute regarding the facts. The applicant was arrested on 1-10-98 and his detention of 90 days in jail had completed on 2. 0-12-98. The applicant on 2-1-99 moved an application for bail. The learned counsel has referred to the order, according to which at the time of presenta tion of application at 10. 50 a. m. the Magistrate enquired from the office and came to know that the chargesheet has not come. Thereafter, the chargesheet was received on that very day and therefore, the application for bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. was rejected. The learned counsel has referred to the following cases: (1) Mohammed fqbal Madar Shekh v. State of Maharashtra; 1996 JIC 499 (SC): 1996 ACC 136. (2) Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1377. (3) Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryanaandanother,1977 SC Cr. R 394.
(3.) I have considered the authorities and is of the view that they are not helpful to the applicant and the argument is totally misconceived and misleading. There is no illegality in the order of the learned C. J. M. According to the applicant 90 days detention was completed on 29-12-98. The Courts were closed on that day and there after re-opened on 2-1-99. Therefore, the chargesheet could have been filed in the Court on 2-1-99. The law provides the day for filing the chargesheet, but the time has not been prescribed. If the prosecution was entitled to file the chargesheet on 2-1 -99, it could have been filed on that day upto the close of the court hours. The argument that it should have been filed at 10. 00 a. m. because the limitation expired in the vacation, is without any force. The chargesheet was, therefore, filed within time and there is no question for bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C The request for bail was rightly refused. The revision is dismissed summarily Revision dismissed. .;