B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This application has been filed by the accused who has been arrested in connection with Cri. Trial (Excise) Case No. 1793 of 2009 under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possessing 6(six) grams of manufactured drugs. The offence prescribes sentence of rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine upto Rs. 1 lakh.

2. The accused was arrested and produced in court on 19.8.2009. During the course of investigation the accused filed bail application No. 810 of 2009 and the said bail application was decided on 3.11.2009, allowing the accused to be released on bail on furnishing of bond of Rs. 40,000 with one surety of like amount.

3. Being aggrieved with the surety amount fixed by the learned Judge Court of Aizawl the accused has preferred this application to relax or to reduce the bail amount.

4. I have heard Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. I have also perused the impugned order.

5. From the impugned order, it appears that the accused has been allowed to be released on bail basically on the ground that since charge-sheet has not been filed within the statutory period, the accused is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly 'Cr.PC').

6. As noted earlier the accused was arrested on 19.8.2009 and the bail application was granted on 3.11.2009 on default clause of Section 167, Cr.PC. In other words, on the date of passing the order the accused had not completed 90 days of judicial custody. Hence, the question arises as to whether in this case the statutory period of 60 days or 90 days would be applicable. For ready reference relevant portions of Section 167, Cr.PC are hereby reproduced:

167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.- (1) *** *** ***

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has ho jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that,-

(a) the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but, no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding-

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety flays, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if lie is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this Sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter,

(b) *** *** ***

Explanation I and II *** *** ***

(2A) to (6) *** *** ***

7. Since the bail application is arising out of an offence under Section 21(b), of the NDPS Act, 1985 it is also relevant to quote the aforesaid provision of law to ascertain whether statutory period of 60 days or 90 days would be applicable for detaining an accused till the filing of charge-sheet. Section21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 runs as below:

(b) where the contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;

8. The words "imprisonment for a term of not less than