- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. This is a revision against order dated 30th November, 1998 passed by Sri Raj Krishna In charge Chief judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur by which an application under Section 167, sub-clause (2), Cr. P. C. has been rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that against revisionists Inayatullah, Suleman and Bholu a case under Section 302,i. P. C. etc. has been registered and they have been arrested. THE prosecution case is that on 19th August, 1998 at about 3-00 p. m. accused Suleman poured kerosene oil over complainant's brother Sukhvir and Bholu took a matchbox from accused Inayatullah and set Sukhvir on fire. THE accused also set fire to the thatched roof of the house. Sukhvir was immediately taken to a hospital situated in a nearby village and there after he was removed to Saharanpur and then to Delhi. First Information Report was lodged by Jaipal, brother of Sukhvir, on 20th August, 1988 after returning from Delhi. The application under Section 167, sub-clause (2), Cr. P. C. was filed on 28th November, 1998 on the ground that the accused were arrested on 28-8-98 and they completed 90 days in jail on 25-11- 98 and therefore, they were entitled to be released on bail because no charge-sheet was filed against them within the period of 90 days. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision. I have heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Counsel for the complainant and A. G. A. for the State.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists has given the following dates: (i) Date of arrest 28-8-98 (ii) Last remand order 25-11 -98 (iii) Date on which 90 days completed 26-11-98 (iv) Application for bail filed 28-11 -98 (v) Charge-sheet filed 30-11. 98 (vi) Bail application considered 30-11 -98. On the basis of the above dates it is contended that the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days and therefore, the ac cused were entitled to be bailed out as of right and the Court below was wrong in postponing the hearing of the bail applica tion to 30-11-98. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has cited Amar Singh and others v. State of U. P. , 1993 (30) ACC 324: 1993 JIC 143 (All) (LB), in which it has been held that bail has to be granted even if there is no bail application on behalf of the accused if the charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days. However, it oppears from Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 1996 (33) ACC 126 (SC): 1996 JIC 315 (SC) that the Court is not obliged to release a person on bail unless a bail application is before it.;