RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by learned 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran at Chapra whereby and whereunder the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer for ‘default’ bail of the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 172 of 2019 registered under Sections 30/30(a)/38(i)(ii) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2016’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution story, in course of checking of the vehicle in question a total 1664.73 liters of foreign liquors were recovered from the truck. The apprehended accused disclosed their names as well as the names of the other accused persons. This petitioner has been named as one of those persons to whom the supply of liquor was to be made.

4. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of false implication of the petitioner on the basis of the alleged statement of the truck driver. It is his submission that in similar manner, the petitioner has been made accused in about 14 cases.

5. Learned counsel submits that so far as this revision application is concerned, it has been filed assailing the impugned order by which the learned court below has refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail giving benefit of the provision of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner was taken on remand in the present case and had been sent to judicial custody on 21.01.2022. The copy of the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned court below has been enclosed with the petition as part of the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel submits that under the Act of 2016 read with proviso (a)(ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., the investigating agency was required to submit a chargesheet within a period of 60 days from the date on which the petitioner has gone in judicial custody. It is submitted that the 60 days’ period in this case expired on 22.03.2022 but no chargesheet was filed within the given statutory period.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. availing his right to get the privilege of default bail on 23.03.2022. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the endorsement made by the office of the learned court below on the margin of the ordersheet wherein on 23.03.2022 at about 02:30 P.M. the office reported to the learned Presiding Officer that no chargesheet has been received in this case. Despite this, the learned court below did not pass the order giving benefit of statutory bail to the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner was kept pending and at about 04:15 P.M. another report was called for and this time, the office reported that chargesheet has been filed at 04:15 P.M. Learned counsel submits that it is evident from the endorsement made on the ordersheet of the learned court below that no chargesheet was available on the records when the petitioner moved his application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Presiding Officer had no reason to keep the application pending. It appears that the I.O. of the case was somehow informed to hurriedly file the chargesheet and he did so towards the end of the working hour of the Court at 04:15 P.M.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Section 76(1) of the Act of 2016 all offences under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable and provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 shall apply. Learned counsel further submits that Sub-Section (2) of Section 76 of the Act of 2016 states that notwithstanding anything mentioned in sub-section (1), nothing in Section 360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act shall apply in relation to a