OM PRAKASH PRADHAN, J. - (1.) THE short point involved in this revision is if the accused -revisionist was entitled to be released on bail on the expiry of 90 days from the date of first remand in the absence of a charge -sheet that had to be submitted by the police during the statutory period of 90 days.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to this revision is simple. It appears that the accused -revisionist was involved in offences under sections 498 -A, 147, 364 and 304 -B I.P.C., in the wake of crime registered at No. 421 of 1992, at P.S. Kotwali, Etawah. The first remand was granted by the learned Magistrate on 8.6.1992. It was on 7.9.1992 that an application was filed on behalf of the accused revisionist that he be released on bail since the police has filed to submit the charge -sheet within the statutory period of 90 days. The learned Magistrate, by means of the impugned order, came to find that the period of 90 days was to expire on 8.9.1992 and, therefore, the application for release on bail was premature. Accordingly, the aforesaid application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. It is this order which has been assailed before this Court. I have heard learned counsel of the revisionist as also the Assistant Government Advocate.
(3.) IT is clear from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate that the first, remand was granted to this accused on 8.6.1992. Accordingly, the period of 90 days expired on 6.9.1992, since there were two months of July and August of thirtyone days each. It appears that the learned Magistrate, while computing the period of90 days, did not keep in mind that two months during the interregnum were of thirty one days, each.;