NARESH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 6.5.2008 whereunder the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai has refused to release the petitioner on bail in the light of the provisions contained in proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The validity of the said order has been challenged on the ground that after expiry of the statutory period of ninety days with effect from the date of remand i.e. 5.2.2008 on account of failure of the prosecution to file charge -sheet, petitioner applied for grant of compulsive bail on 6.5.2008 in terms of proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., which application was allowed under orders dated 6.5.2008 itself directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 7,000/ -(Seven thousand) with two sureties of the like amount. Copy of the said order was, however, also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police for his information.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of this application submitted that once the right for grant of compulsive bail under proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. was availed of and bail bonds were submitted then it was not open for the court below to have not accepted the bail bonds as before the filing of the charge -sheet the right for grant of compulsive bail stood availed of Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that right for grant of compulsive bail may have been availed of after the expiry of the period of ninety days but before the bail bonds submitted by the petitioner could be accepted and he could be released charge -sheet was filed on the same day and in the light of the filing of the charge -sheet the bail bonds were not accepted and the right availed of could not crystallize and in the light of the filing of the charge -sheet it was open for the court below to have not accepted the bail bonds.