This is an application for bail in a case of dowry death. The prayer was rejected on merit on March 4, 1997, in Cr. Misc. No. 1776 of 1997. In this application he seeks compulsive bail under proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The admitted facts, so far as relevant, are these. The petitioner was remanded to custody on December 16, 1996. The period of 90 days expired on March 16, 1997, which was a Sunday. The petitioner filed application for bail in terms of proviso to section 167(2) of the Code on March 17, 1997. The magistrate directed the office to submit report whether the charge sheet has been submitted or not. On March 18, 1997 the charge-sheet was submitted. On March 22, 1997 the magistrate heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State and rejected the prayer. He noticed that charge-sheet had already been submitted and cognizance also had been taken on March 18, 1997.

3. It is not disputed at the Bar that the right to compulsive bail is not an indefeasible right and the same is lost on filing of the charge-sheet or challan, by whatever name it is called. Mr. Kalika Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the application for bail having already been filed before the submission of the charge sheet, the petitioner ii entitled to release under the above said provision. He placed reliance on Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 402) and State of M. P. v. Rustam, 1995 Supp (8) SCC 221.

4. In the case of Rustam (supra) it has been stated :

"The Court is required to examine the availability of the right of compulsive bail on the date it is considering the question of bail and not barely on the date of the presentation of the petition for bail.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Court referred to amongst others the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra). In .Sanjay Dutt's case it has been observed -

"It is settled by Constitution Bench decisions that a petition seeking the writ of habeas corpus on the ground of absence of a valid order of remand or detention of the accused, has to be dismissed, if on the date of return of the rule, the custody or detention is on the basis of a valid order. (See-Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab; Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi and A. K. Gopalan vs. Government of India."

6. It would not be out of place to mention that the charge-sheet had been finalized and signed by the Investigating officer on March 15, 1997, which means that the Investigation had been completed by that date. Section 167 contemplates the stage of investigation. After the investigation is completed, charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken, the stage of the case is changed, the proviso to section 167 (2) of the code has no application.

In these premises, I am unable to direct the release of the petitioner under proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code. The application is, accordingly, rejected. Application rejected.