The mandatory nature of Section 167(2) CrPC and the inclusion of the period of detention under Section 57 CrPC in the 60-day period under Section 167(2).

1. - This is an application under Section 439 Cr.PC, 1973, praying for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this application are that on 27 0 1977, at about 2 a.m. Darshan Singh lodged a report with the police stating that he has three more brothers and all the four brothers are living jointly. It was further contended that they have two trucks RJR 6167 & RJR 6667. RJR 6167 is registered in the name of Darshan Singh and Major Singh while the truck No RJR 6667 is registered in his own name. It was further alleged that Major Singh and Khelihigh's wife along with seven children died in an accident about a year back. Out of the our brothers, he alone had a wife who had also come in 'nata'. His brother Major Singh had started keeping his wife as his own wife. The petitioner, it was contended, wanted to be compensated for the loss of his wife by getting the truck transferred in his name which was in the name of Major Singh. Major Singh, however, did not agree with this proposal. It was further alleged that on October 26, 1977, he took away the truck after loading wheat in it along with his driver Mangal Singh. When he came near Pechiki Bawari, he asked his cleaner to go back. When Mangal Singh reached near Banthali, it is alleged that the truck No RRR 45 stopped them. It is said that his brother Majorsingh, Harbaksh Singh and Chhida got down from the truck and stopped the truck. The truck driver Mangalsingh was Killed by them. On of the report, the police went to the site for investigation. During investigation, it transpired to the investigation agency that the murder of the driver Mangal Singh was committed by the accused-petitioner Darshan Singh himself. The accused was arrested on 27th October, 1977 at 3. 30 p.m. A challan was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate on 26th December 1977, An application for releasing the accused petitioner on bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, who rejected the same on the 10th Januaiy 1977.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the accused petitioner that as the provisions of Section 167(2). Cr.P.C. were violated, the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It was further contended that the provision of Section 167 Cr.P.C. 1973 are mandatory in character and had to be complied with. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in computing the period and also in applying Section 469, 471 and 473 Cr.P.C., to the facts of the present case.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the grant of bail to the accused petitioner.

5. The respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.

6. Reliance was placed on Notobar Parida v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 S.C. 1465 , wherein it was held that under the new Code, on police officer can detain a person in custody, arrested without a warrant, for a period longer than 24 hours as mentioned in Section 57 corresponding to Section 61 of the Old Code. Section 167 occurring in Chapter XII bearing the heading "Information to the police and their powers to investigate"-the same as in Chapter XIV of the Old Code-has made some drastic departure. Similar is the position in regard to Section 309 of the new Code corresponding to Section 344 of the Old Code It may be emphasised that the court will have no inherent power of remand of an accused to any custody unless the power is conferred by law. The assumption of the High Court without reference to Section 344 of the old Code that such a power existed is not correct."

7. Reliance was placed on Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration A.I.R. 1964 Manipur 39 , wherein it is held that twenty-four hours prescribed under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C. is the outer most limit beyond which a per ion cannot be detained in police custody. It is certainly not an authorisation for th