A.K.Sinha, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the APP for the State.

2. In the instant application, a prayer has been made to release the petitioner, namely, Bishwanath Ram on bail who is in jail custody in connection with Meral P.S. case No. 32 of 1998, corresponding to G.R Case No. 271 of 1998, under Secs. 1211 121(A) /122 1 216 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and is in jail custody since 3-5-1998.

3. The admitted position is that the petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid case on 3-5-1998 and the police took up the investigation in the case and submitted charge - sheet against the petitioner under Sections 121/ 121 (AJ/ 1221/ 124 (A)/ 384/ 216 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Sec. 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, on 3-8-1998 Le. on the 90th day from the date of first remand of the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, did not take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police for want of sanction as the offences were covered under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of Secs. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) made it mandatory for the Court to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Chapter VI of the IPC with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government as the case may be.

4. A report was called for from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Garhwa, which shows that till 3-4-2000 the cognizance has not been taken by him in the case for want of sanction order of the District Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Garhwa has annexed the certified copy of the order sheet as called for from him with his report, which also bears testimony to this effect that he has not taken cognizance in, the case for want of the sanction order as envisaged under Sec. 196 of the Code relating to the offences committed under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code. It may be pointed out that the petitioner moved for his bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate; Garhwa, on the ground that his detention is illegal, but his prayer for bail was rejected on the ground that since the police has submitted the charge-sheet he is not entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of Sec. 167(2) of the Code. The petitioner moved for his bail before the learned Sessions Judge. Palamau at Daltonganj, which was rejected and he also moved for his bail before this Hon ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7965 of 1998 (R), which was rejected vide order dated 28-10-1998 and in Crl. Misc. No. 2518 of 1999 (R), which was rejected on vide order dated 16-4-1999. While disposing of the Crl. Misc. No. 2118 of 1999 (R) on 16-4-1999 a Bench of this Court had observed that the petitioner may approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Garhwa and pray for bail. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a bail petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Garhwa on 12-5-1999 under Sec. 167(2) of the Code, which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for bail under Sec. 167(2) of the Code, because charge - sheet had been submitted by the police within 90 days. Against that order the petitioner moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau who also rejected his prayer" and consequently the instant application has been filed.

5. From the above narration of the admitted facts, it is apparent that although the police has submitted charge - sheet against the petitioner under the aforesaid counts, but no cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Garhwa, on the basis of that charge - sheet and the petitioner is being remanded to custody.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Garhwa, has not taken cognizance on the, basis of the charge - sheet submitted by