- (1.) O. P. Pradhan, J. This application for bail has been filed on behalf of Inayat Ullah who is involved in Crime No. Nil of 1993- Union of India v. Inayat Ullah and others, under Section 8/21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Dariyabad, Barabanki.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the accused applicant was arrested in this case on 26-8-1993 while the complaint was filed by the Narcotics Department on 3-12-1993 in the competent Court. In the circumstances, it has been contended that the complaint having been filed beyond 90 days, the accused-applicant became entitled for bail in view of the salient provisions of Section 1 67, Cr. P. C. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant on the cases reported in 1994 LLJ 36, Sunil Yadav v. State of U. P. ; 1993 LLJ 213: 1994 JIG 840 (LB), Dharmanand v. State; as also 1991 UP Crr 37, C. E. D. Silva v. Union of India and lastly on the case reported in 1993 (1) SCRD 721, Satya Bhan Singh v. State of U. P. and another.
(3.) I have gone through the aforesaid reported cases which appear to support the contention of the loarned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant became entitled for bail in view of Section 167, Cr. P. C. when the complaint came to be filed beyond 90 days in the present case. This factual position is not disputed in the present case from the side of Union of India either. In the background of the factual and legal position, it has to be found that the accused-applicant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, he may be admit ted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. twenty five thousand to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, concerned. Bail application allowed. .;