JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr.S.C.-III for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2023, by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the learned revisional court has been pleased to dismiss the revision petition, wherein the challenge was made to the order dated 06.02.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, wherein she has been pleased to dismiss the MCA No. 855 of 2023, which was filed in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 427 of 2022, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, which was registered as Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 427 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 for the offences under Section 363 and later on police added Section 302/201 on 06.01.2023 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the in course of investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody on 07.11.2022 and since then he is languishing in jail. He further submits that the chargesheet was not submitted within the period of 90 days, as such, in terms of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner applied for default bail under that Section before the learned trial court on 06.02.2023 at 1.00 P.M. He further submits that on the same day, the learned court has directed the OC to submit report as to whether the chargesheet has been received or not. He further submits that at 3.35 P.M. on the same day, it was informed to the court that chargesheet has not been submitted. He further submits that at 4.00 P.M. on the same day, it was also informed that the chargesheet has been submitted and considering that the chargesheet has come, the learned court has been pleased to reject the application, filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner moved before the learned revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2023, wherein the learned revisional court has also been pleased to dismiss the said revision petition by order dated 21.02.2023 relying on the minority view of the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453. He further submits that in the said case, it has been held that once the default bail application is filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., it deemed to have “availed of” or enforced his right to be released on default bail. He further submits that in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya (Supra) has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Ravindran Versus Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485, wherein it has been held that the Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s Case (Supra) is a good law and that still holds the field. He refers to paras-10.1, 15, 16, 18, 18.2, 18.3, 18.6, 18.7 and 25 of the said judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“10.1. (a) Whether the indefeasible right accruing to the appellant under Section 167(2) CrPC gets extinguished by subsequent filing of an additional complaint by the investigating agency.

15. Based on the abovementioned principles, the majority opinion in UdayMohanlal Acharya [UdayMohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 760] held that the accused is deemed to have exercised his right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC the moment he files the application for bail and offers to abide by the terms and conditions of bail. The prosecution cannot frustrate the object of Section 167(2) CrPC by subsequently filing a charge-sheet or additional complaint while the bail application is pending consideration or final disposal before a Magistrate or a higher forum. Accordingly, this Court granted relief to the appellant-accused in that case.

16. However, it appears that in spite o