( 1 ) THE petitioner before us is the original accused. The petitioner along with seven other persons is charged with committing offences punishable under secs. 302 342 323 all read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners wifes golden chain was snatched away by some one when she had attended a Garba function. In respect of that offence the petitioner had filed a complaint with the police. Thereafter the entire village of Palla where the petitioner was residing is alleged to have gathered together and caught hold of some members of Vaghari Community on suspicion that the theft of the golden chain from the petitioners wife was committed by one or the other member of the Vaghari community of the village. the member of the Vaghari community are alleged to have been beaten up by the residence of Palla village and it is alleged that as a result of that beating one Vaghari Soma Lala died. This incident is alleged to have happened on 16/10/1980

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Matar but the bail application was rejected. Therefore a revision application war filed before the Sessions Court Kheda at Nadiad and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the matter confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Thereafter a criminal revision application was filed before this High Court and our learned Brother Gheewala J. directed that six out of the seven applications who had approached the High Court should be released on bail but so far as the petitioner was concerned his application for bail was rejected.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 21/10/1980 and he was produced before the learned judicial Magistrate First Class Matar on 22/10/1980 No chargesheet was filed by the prosecution for a period of ninety days and the chargesheet was actually filed on 21/01/1981 It is the case of the petitioner that the chargesheet was filed after ninety days and under the provisions of sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit.

( 4 ) ON 20/01/1981 an application for bail in view of the provisions of sec. 167 (2) was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Matar but instead of releasing the petitioner on bail the learned Magistrate adjourned the hearing of the application to 23/01/1981 In the meantime the investigating authorities filed by a chargesheet on 21/01/1981

( 5 ) A criminal revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1981 was filed in this High Court by the present petitioner contending that he was entiled to be released on bail on the expiry of the period of ninety days from the date when he was first produced before the learned Magistrate on 29/10/1980

( 6 ) THE criminal revision application came up for orders before our learned Brother Bedarkar J. and at that time the decision in Umedsinh Vakmalji Jadeja and Others v. State of Gujarat 16 G. L. R. 572 was relied on on behalf of the prosecution and it was contended in the light of that decision that since the chargesheet was already filed the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enlarge the petitioner on bail under sec 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and it was further contended that the application if any could be made only under sec. 437 of the Code and that the present criminal revision application was therefore not maintainable.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhis case A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 597 and also on the decision of the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 847 -Ved Prakash Chaudhry v. State of Haryana and Others. Bedarkar J. was of the opinion that sitting as a Single Judge he was bound by the decision of the Division Bench in Umedsinhs case (supra) and since the question was to be considered f