( 1 ) ). IN this application, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 1. 6. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat while dealing with Criminal Revision Application No. 115/2000. Pending this revision application, the petitioner has also prayed under Sec. 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. stating that even otherwise he could have been granted bail. Mr. Mangukia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the argument has fairly submitted that the petitioner is not interested in formal order qua application for bail preferred under sec. 439 (2) of Cr. P. C. and this court should decide this revision application preferred by the petitioner and he should be enlarged on bail confirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat dated 20. 5. 2000 wherein the petitioner was granted bail under sec. 167 (2) of Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) ). THE petitioner-accused is facing charge of the offence punishable under sec. 302 and 452 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner has killed his wife by inflicting knife blows on 14. 2. 2000. The petitioner initially has posed himself as an informant-complainant to the police, but on investigation, he himself was arrested for the offence on 16. 2. 2000 at about 11. 30p. m. by the Investigating Officer. On 17. 2. 2000, the petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and on request he was granted police remand for one day. On 18. 2. 2000 at about 15. 50 hrs. petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and was committed to the judicial custody. According to the petitioner, considering the nature of offence, the investigating agency ought to have filed charge-sheet within the period of 90 days i. e. on or before 17. 5. 2000, but is failed in filing challan under Sec. 173 of Cr. P. C. , the petitioner should have been enlarged on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. On 18. 5. 2000, the petitioner preferred an application for bail as the scheme of Sec. 167 of Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) ). I have carefully considered the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Surat granting bail to the petitioner holding that the investigating Agency has failed in filing the charge-sheet within prescribed period of 90 days. The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat by the State of Gujarat being Criminal Revision Application NO. 115/2000 and after hearing the parties at length, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat allowed the revision application and quashed the order granting bail to the petitioner passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

( 4 ) ). THE plain reading of the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat, at first glance appears to be a reasoned order, based on relevant judicial pronouncement referred in the order, but considering the facts in reference to the scope of entire scheme of Sec. 167 of Cr. P. C. and especially sec. 167 (2) of Cr. P. C. the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is found erroneous. Mr. Mangukia learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not correctly interpreted the scheme of the Act in special reference to a right embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) ). DURING the course of submissions, Mr. Mangukia has drawn my attention on the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001, SCW, p. 1500 in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra. Mr. Mangukia learned counsel has taken me through the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court.

( 6 ) ). PROVISO of sub-section (2) of Sec. 167 of Cr. P. C. is unambiguously clear and the same stipulates that the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish the bail. Bail under sec. 167 (2) of Cr. P. C. has been termed a