N.C.KHICHI,J - (1.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. This revision has been directed against the order dated 8.4.2000 whereby application filed by the petitioner for his release on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 7.1.2000 and he had moved the court for bail on 7.4.2000 by filing an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Notice of this application was issued to the State for 8.4.2000 on which date the challan was presented in court. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the challan has been presented before the decision of the bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the exipiry of statutory period of 90 days the petitioner had exercised his option for release on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and as such he was entitled to be released on bail even if the challan was filed before the disposal of the bail application. In support of his contention he has relied upon Union of India v. Thamisharasi and others, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 531, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 156 and a decision of our own High Court in Kulvinder Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 226.
(3.) I find fully agreeable with the contention of the learned counsel. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioner had exercised his option under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on expiry of the statutory period for filing the challan though the application remained pending. The challan was admittedly filed before the decision of the bail application. The petitioner was legally entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fact that his application was disposed of after the filing of the challan.;