Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. authorizes the detention of the accused during the course of investigation and does not mandate cognizance of the offense within a specified period.

1. - This bail application has been filed in reference to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

2. It is stated that by remand, custody of the accused- applicant can be authorised for maximum period of 60 or 90 days as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the accused-applicant was detained beyond the period of 90 days. It is not only that the charge sheet but cognizance of offence was subsequent to the period of 90 days. Since, cognizance of offence was not taken within the period of 90 days, the accused-applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

3. A reference of judgement of this Court in the case of Shankerlal Nai v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (3) RCC 1217 has been given. In the said case, two earlier judgements of this Court in the case of Roopchand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 774 and in the case of Narayan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1982 RCC 316 were relied. The judgement of this Court in the case of Mahaveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992 RCC 439 has also been listed by learned counsel for the accused-applicant. A prayer is accordingly made to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that charge-sheet in the case was filed within 90 days from the date of remand. The custody of the accused-applicant during the period of investigation was authorised by the remand orders passed from time to time. In view of the above, the custody of the accused-applicant with the Investigating Officer was authorised for the period provided under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. Thus, the plea raised by learned counsel for the accused-applicant is not tenable.

5. It is further stated that charge-sheet was filed prior to filing of bail application, thus even if it was filed beyond the period of 90 days, the right of the accused-applicant vanished with filing of charge sheet. In view of the above, the accused-applicant cannot have a claim in reference to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is also stated that there is no mandate under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance within the period, for which, custody is authorized. A separate provision exists to provide limitation for cognizance of offence. In view of the above, no ground is made out for acceptance of plea of learned counsel for the accused-applicant. The reference of all the four judgements, given by learned counsel for the accused-applicant, is in ignorance of the provisions of Cr.PC. and the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

7. The issue for my consideration is as to whether accused-applicant is entitled for bail in reference to Section 167(2) Cr.PC. The facts narrated by learned counsel for the accused-applicant need to be considered first before coming to the legal issue.

8. The accused-applicant was taken in the custody on 29th March, 2015. The charge-sheet is said to have been filed before the Court below on 25th June, 2015. If total days in between are counted even after inclusion of the date of first remand, it comes to 89 days only. In view of the above, it becomes clear that charge-sheet was filed within the period provided under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. In view of the above, the argument of learned counsel for the accused-applicant that charge-sheet was filed beyond the period given under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not made out.

9. The question now comes as to whether cognizance of offence was also required to be taken within the period of 90 days.

10. The bail application does not disclose the date when the cognizance of offence was taken, rather the order sheet of the date of filing of charge-sheet or of subsequent date, have not been enclosed along with the bail application to determine the aforesaid issue. In view of the above, vague ground has been raised in regard to cognizance of offence. This is the factual position of the case.

11. The