The right to bail is extinguished upon the filing of the charge-sheet, and the submission of a supplementary charge-sheet does not indicate incomplete investigation.

( 1 ) WE had heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the accused-petitioners and the two Opposite-Parties at length yesterday. We have perused the materials on record, as also the decisions referred to by the Learned Advocates for the contending parties.

( 2 ) THE accused-petitioners have prayed for bail mainly on the ground that the investigation of the relevant case had not been concluded within the prescribed period of 90 days, and that the charge-sheet submitted is not a conclusive one as it is mentioned therein that a supplementary charge-sheet would be submitted in the matter.

( 3 ) THE nature of the case would appear from the order of the court below dated 10. 3. 94, which we do not propose to re-iterate. It appears from the said order that the accused-petitioners were arrested on 27. 11. 94 and the charge-sheet in the relevant case was signed by the Investigating officer on 24. 2. 95, which was filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 27. 2. 95. It is thus submitted by the Learned Advocates for the accused-petitioners that the charge-sheet was submitted on the 92nd day of their arrest, and they are entitled to bail as a matter of course in view of the provisions of Section 167, Cr. P. C. It has, however, been brought to our notice by the Learned Advocate for the Opposite-Party No. 2 that the Charge-sheet had been filed before the court on 27. 2. 95, as 25th and 26th of February, 1995 were holidays at Andaman, being Saturday and Sunday respectively. That being so, it cannot be held that the charge-sheet was submitted before the court beyond the prescribed period. The Learned Advocates for the Opposite-Party No. 1 had further submitted, referring us to Section 57 of the Cr. P. C. , that the transit period for forwarding the charge-sheet to the Court would be available to the Investigating Agency. And, on that score as well it could not be said that the charge-sheet was submitted before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned beyond the prescribed period. The Learned Advocate for the Opposite-Party No. 1 had also referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. The State, through C. B. I. Bombay, 1995 Cr. L. J 477 to contend that the accused-petitioners would neither be entitled to bail in view of the submission of charge-sheet in the relevant case.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 50 and 55 of the aforesaid decision, it must be held that if the right accruing to the accused-petitioners had remained unenforced till the filing of the challan/charge-sheet, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it is extinguished the moment challan/charge-sheet is filed because Section 167, Cr. P. C. , ceases to apply. In the aforesaid circumstances, the accused-petitioners, to our judgment, would not be entitled to get bail as a matter of course on the plea that charge-sheet in the relevant case has been filed beyond the prescribed period, as contended by them. The decisions reported in AIR 1955 SC 196, AIR 1959 SC 707 and AIR 1983 SC 439, referred to by the Learned Advocate for the petitioners do not, therefore, seem to us to be of any avail to them.

( 5 ) AS regards the other contention of the accused-petitioners that since it is mentioned in the charge-sheet that supplementary charge-sheet would be submitted after receipt of the C. F. S. L. and Serological Reports, the charge-sheet submitted could not be said to be conclusive ; and the investigation in the relevant case would not be said to have been completed. But to that we would like to note with a minute of dissent that there is no bar under the law in submitting a supplementary charge-sheet at the appropriate stage, if so required, even after the conclusion of investigation. It further appears from the certified copy of the order dated 27. 2. 95 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, that he had already taken cog