1. The applicants are the accused in a case arising out of C.R. No. I – 63/2013 of Sheel Dahighar Police Station, Thane. The said C.R. was initially registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 304 of IPC, Section 337 of IPC, Section 338 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The applicants were arrested on 06.04.2013 by the Crime Branch, Thane and were produced before the Magistrate on 07.04.2013 for obtaining their remand in police custody. In the course of investigation, the accusation of some other offences also came to be levelled against the applicants and other accused in this case.

On 06.06.2013, when the investigation was still pending, the applicants applied for bail on the ground that the maximum period of detention pending investigation, as permitted by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was over, and that, since the investigation was still incomplete, the applicants were entitled to be released on bail, mandatorily, as per the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code. This application filed by the applicants and the other accused was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act Thane, who rejected the same, inter alia, by holding that the maximum period of detention as permissible under the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code was 90 days in this case, and not 60 days, as contended by the applicants. In other words, though the contention of the applicants was that sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code was applicable in their case, the learned Judge did not agree with this contention and held, not sub-clause (ii), but sub-clause (i) of the clause (a) of the said proviso was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court contending that on the expiry of 60 days from the date of their first remand in custody, they were entitled to be released on bail, as the investigation had not been completed till that time.

2. I have heard Mr. Majeed Memon, the learned counsel for the applicants. I have also heard Smt. S.D. Shinde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed an affidavit of the Investigating Officer, Shri Pandit Kendre, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, for opposing the present application. Also, in view of the contentions advanced, the case diaries were called for, for examining the certain aspects of the matter.

4. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheet came to be filed within the period of 90 days from the first date on which the detention of the applicants was authorized by remanding them in custody. Therefore, the only question in this case is, whether the case of the applicants would fall under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code, as contended by the learned A.P.P., or whether, it would fall under clause (ii) thereof, as contended by the learned counsel for the applicants.

5. Mr. Majeed Memon, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he was not advancing any arguments on the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicants and about the value, or reliability of the material, which the Investigating Agency claims as exists, against them. He made it clear that he was seeking bail only on the ground that the applicants had been detained beyond the maximum period permitted by law, which according to him, as aforesaid, was 60 days from the date on which the applicants’ detention into custody was first authorised. I have, therefore, not examined the merits of the matter i.e. the reliability of the material, said to be available against the applicants and whether a prima facie case of the alleged offences has been made o