An accused person is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2)(a) of the CrPC only if they are prepared to and do furnish bail bonds. Failure to furnish bail bonds before the submission of the charge sheet extinguishes the right to be released on bail under this provision.

1. The petitionerers have moved this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.12.1992 passed by the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur by reason of which the Court has recalled the order dated 18.12.1992 passed u/s. 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). By reason of said order dated 18.12.1992, the petitioners were released on bail on the ground that the charge sheet in the case was not tiled within prescribed statutory time.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State have agreed that this case may be disposed of at the stage of admission itself and as such extensive hearing was given to the parties.

3. . The question is to be decided in this case as to whether once the order of bail granted to the petitioners under the provisions of sec. 167(2)(a) of the Code, the same could be recalled after filing of the charge sheet and before the petitioners could furnish surety for their release.

4. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute, lies in a narrow compass.

5. On the basis of an FJ.R. lodged by one Sudama Devi, Bochha P.S. Case No. 80/92 was registered under sections 498(a), 304(b) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners as well as one Jhilmiliya Devi. The allegation in the F.I.R. is to the effect that the daughter of the informant, namely, Meera Devi was married with petitioner No. 2 nearly two years ago. The husband of the informant had gone to the house of petitioner No. 2 for fixing the date of Rokshadi of her daughter and the date of Rokshadi was fixed on 17.8.1992 by the petitioner No. 1 When the husband of the informant had gone to his daughter, petitioner No, 1 and co-accused Jhilmilya Devi informed the husband of the informant that Meera Devi had committed suicide on 15.8.1992. The husband of the informant returned to the house of his Sasural and narrated this fact to the mother-in-law i.e. the mother of the informant. It is alleged that subsequent thereto, the informant came to know that though petitioner No. 2 informed her that Meera Devi committed suicide but petitioner No. 1 and his wife Jhilmiliya Devi told the informant that Meera Devi had pain in her abdomen and she died. The informant alleged that her daughter was subjected to cruelty of her husband due to non-receipt of Silver Hasuli from the informant so Meera Devi had committed suicide.

6. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid case was registered against the petitioners and Jhimiliya Devi under the above mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code.

7. It appears that investigation was started but as no charge sheet was submitted within the prescribed period of 90 days, the petitioners filed a petition before the court below u/s. 167(2) of the Code. The C.J.M. being satisfied that no charge sheet was submitted within 90 days released the petitioners on bail by his order dated 18.12.1992, as provided u/s. 167(2) of the Code.

8. It is not in dispute that after the said bail order was passed on 18.12.1992, the petitioners did not furnish any bail bond either on 18.12.1992 or on 19.12.1992. In the meantime, it appears that the charge sheet was submitted against them on 19.12.1992 at 7.30 p.m. On 22.12.1992, the petitioners filed bail bond and affidavit but a petition was filed by the A.P.P. on the same date stating therein that as the charge sheet has already been submitted on 19.12.1992 and since till that date no bail bond was filed on behalf of the petitioners, the order granting bail to the petitioners should be recalled taking into consideration the heinous nature of offence. On such petition being filed the matter was heard at length and by reason of the impugned order, the learned C.J.M. recalled the order dated 18.12.1992.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of Aslam Babalal Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra, has contended that once order for releasing the petitioners was passed u/s. 167(2) of the Code, subsequent filing of the