Amitav K.Gupta,J. - (1.) This Revision application is directed against the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal in Rajmahal P.S. Case No.354 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.634 of 2012, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C for releasing him on bail was rejected.
(2.) Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel, for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. That his name transpired in course of investigation accordingly he was remanded in this case on 14.08.2014; that the petitioner completed 90 days in custody on 11.11.2014 where after in terms of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C the petitioner filed an application for bail on the 91st day as charge-sheet was not submitted within the statutory period of 90 days. That after filing of the said bail application as would transpire from Annexure - 2, a report was called for from the office and the office reported that the charge-sheet has been filed at 01:00 P.M. i.e. after the filing of the application for bail in terms of Section 167(2) (a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the right of the petitioner to be admitted on bail had accrued on the 91st day as the charge sheet was not filed by the investigating officer within the stipulated and mandated period of 90 days and subsequent filing of charge-sheet on 91st day at 01:00 P.M. cannot extinguish the right of bail to the petitioner as mandated under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in a case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (2) East Cr C 256 (SC).
(3.) Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, learend A.P.P has not controverted the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel.;