(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. has been directed against the order dated 2-1-99 passed by the C. J. M. Etah by which he rejected the application of the applicant for bail under Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. on the ground that the chargesheet has not been submitted With in 90 days.
(2.) I have heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S. T. Siddiquiand the learned A. G. A.
(3.) I have considered the authorities and is of the view that they are not helpful to the applicant and the argument is totally misconceived and misleading. There is no illegality in the order of the learned C. J. M. According to the applicant 90 days detention was completed on 29-12-98. The Courts were closed on that day and there after re-opened on 2-1-99. Therefore, the chargesheet could have been filed in the Court on 2-1-99. The law provides the day for filing the chargesheet, but the time has not been prescribed. If the prosecution was entitled to file the chargesheet on 2-1 -99, it could have been filed on that day upto the close of the court hours. The argument that it should have been filed at 10. 00 a. m. because the limitation expired in the vacation, is without any force. The chargesheet was, therefore, filed within time and there is no question for bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C The request for bail was rightly refused.