Hemant Gupta, J.

The petitioner is an accused in Piri Bazaar P. S. Case No.04 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that on 30th of January, 2016, information was given by the informant Navin Kumar that at Lathia Kol Hill, the dreaded terrorist Arjun Koda and Arbind Koda along with 20-25 armed persons have assembled. They are planning to attack the policy party. In a combing operation, the informant reached the hiding places at around 12 at Noon starting at 7 A.M.. They saw one person, who ran after seeing the police party. He was apprehended and was in the process of investigation when alarm was raised in the Lathiakol village. In the meantime, a crowd of hundreds of people along with bow and arrow, axe, Lathi etc. started coming towards the police. Children and women were placed in front and thereafter there were Naxalites armed with weapons, who were raising slogans. Such crowd attacked the police party. The said crowd was successful in getting free Lalan Koda. Arjun Koda, Arbind Yadav, Suresh Koda and other Naxalites started firing on the police with intent to kill and take the arms. One Bhawesh Kumar got a bullet injury and fell down. On firing being ordered, the crowd and the Naxalites went towards forest. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.

3. The petitioner was taken in judicial custody on 1st of February, 2016. He sought compulsive bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10th of May, 2016 on the ground that the charge-sheet has not been put up before the Court within 90 days. The learned Trial Court passed an order on the same day at 11.50 A.M. allowing the bail to the petitioner but at 12:30 P.M. before the petitioner could be released, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer for extension of time to submit charge-sheet in terms of the provisions of the Act which grants 180 days time for submission of the charge-sheet if sufficient cause is shown to the Court. It is on the said application, the Court passed an order granting 15 days more time to the Investigating Officer to file charge-sheet. Admittedly, the charge-sheet has since been filed within the time so granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Supreme Court order in the case of Union of India through C.B.I. v. Nirala Ydav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, (2014) 9 SCC 457, to contend that once the petitioner has filed an application for bail and admittedly the charge-sheet was not filed at that time, the petitioner is entitled to compulsive bail in view of the said judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as on the same day when the bail was applied, the learned Trial Court granted 15 days" time to file charge-sheet. The act of bail and of extension of time both have taken place on the same day.

6. In Nirala Yadav's case (supra) it has been held that right of the bail has to be seen on the day when the application for bail is filed. The Court said to following effect:

"47. ……………….In the instant case, the day the accused filed the application for benefit of the default provision as engrafted under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 CrPC the Court required the accused to file a rejoinder-affidavit by the time the initial period provided under the statute had expired. There was no question of any contest as if the application for extension had been filed prior to the expiry of time. The adjournment by the learned Magistrate was misconceived. He was obliged on that day to deal with the application filed by the accused as required under Section 167(2) CrPC. We have no hesitation in saying that such pro