S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE first accused in Crime No. 60 of 1992 of Muddanur Police Station (P. R. C. No. 7/93) is the petitioner. He along with eight others was alleged to have committed offences under Ss. 148, 307, 302 r/w Section 34, I. P. C. Section 25 (1) (b) (a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He states that he was arrested on 29-9-1992 and the charge-sheet was taken on file on 27-1-1993. As more than 90 days period has expired from the date of his arrest and the date of taking cognizance of the offences, he filed an application under section 167, Cr. P. C. , Criminal M. P. No. 75/93, in the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. That petition was dismissed on 24-2-1993. He says that his continuance in remand after 90 days without taking cognizance of the offence amounts to illegal detention and prays that he may be released on bail.

( 2 ) SRI. M. Sreeramulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences within 90 days of the arrest of the petitioner, his continued detention is illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. and that subsequent order of remand under section 309 (2), Cr. P. C. would not make it a valid detention, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was taken into custody on 15-10-1992 and the charge-sheet was filed on 26-11-1992 which is within the statutory period, therefore, Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. has no application. He further submits that the bail application was filed on 9-2-1993 after taking cognizance by the Magistrate on 27-1-1993; the remand of the petitioner to judicial custody is under Section 309 (2), Cr. P. C. which is legal and valid; the petitioner has earlier filed a bail application which was dismissed on merits so far these he is not entitled to be released on bail.

( 4 ) THE short question that arises in this case is, whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that order of remand was passed by the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offences.

( 5 ) THE petitioner and the other accused are alleged to have committed the offences under sections 148, 307, 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. , Section 25 (1) (b) (a) of Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Since the petitioner applied for bail under sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr. P. C. it will be apt to set out the said section, so far as it is relevant for our purpose. " (2 ). The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction : Provided that - (a) The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the Police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document