MISBAH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which has been raised in this revision is that the accused-revisionist has been detained in custody for more than 90 days before filing of the charge-sheet and the same was not considered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. In the decision reported in 1982 Cr LJ 1336 (Fakira Naik and others v. State of Orissa) it was held that the date on which the accused suffers deprivation of his liberty would also count for one day. THE fraction of a day which the accused is under detention is also a day for the purpose of proviso (a) to Section 167 (2), Cr. P.C. Learned advocate for the revisionist has submitted that he was taken to custody on 8.4.1994 and charge- sheet was submitted on 6.8.1994 and in between accused was on short term bail from 25.6.1994 to 24.7.1994. So according to him he was in the custody for 91 days on the date when the charge-sheet was filed and. accordingly, he is entitled to bail.

(2.) LEARNED Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not consider this aspect of the matter. The calculation shows that during that period he was in custody for 91 days. Accordingly learned advocate for the revisionist is justified in saying that the accused revisionist is justified in saying that the accused revisionist should be granted bail according to the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a), Cr. P.C.