1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by these two petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 925 days in preferring the main revision case against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4262 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, by order dated 10.11.2014, in Crime No.746 of 2014. The first petitioner had been arrested on 07.08.2014 and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2014 and the second petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2014 and remanded to judicial custody on 09.08.2014. The alleged offences against the accused persons were under Sections 341, 307, 302, 153(A) and 120(B) of IPC and under Section 16(1)(a), 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'].

2. It seems that, since these two petitioners had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2014 and 09.08.2014 respectively, they moved an application before the Sub Court on 10.11.2014 for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioners, they moved the said petition for statutory bail on the ground that since the statutory period of 90 days of their judicial remand had come to an end on 07.11.2014 and 08.11.2014 they would be entitled to get statutory bail and accordingly, the said petition was moved on 10.11.2014 in Crl.M.P.No.4262 of 2014, before the Principal Sessions court, Tiruvallur.

3. The said application for statutory bail moved by these two petitioners along with other accused persons was heard and dismissed by the learned judge, by his order dated 10.11.2014, on the ground that the learned Public Prosecutor has already filed a petition on 16.10.2014, under Section 43(D) of the Act seeking extension of time for investigation and the same had been allowed by the court extending time for investigation by a further period of three months (90 days), in a whole 180 days. Therefore, under the said circumstances, the petition filed by these two petitioners under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., could not be entertained and accordingly, it was dismissed.

4. Though the said order was passed by the Sessions Court on 10.11.2014 itself, if at all, the petitioners were aggrieved over the said order, they could have filed a revision before this court, within a period of 90 days. However, the petitioners had not chosen to file any revision. Belatedly, that too after allowing the delay of 925 days, they have come forward to file the present revision case before this court in Crl.R.C.Sr.No.36472 of 2017 along with the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.10632 of 2017 seeking to condone the delay of 925 days in preferring the revision case.

5. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, these two petitioners are very poor and they had been in judicial custody from the date of their arrest/remand and therefore, they could not move immediately before this Court by fling this revision case in time. Therefore, such a huge delay occurred in preferring the revision case. Unless the delay is condoned, it would cause irreparable loss and damage and immense suffering to them and therefore, on that ground, the learned counsel seeks to condone the delay.

6. Apart from the reason for delay as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he has also made submissions on merits of the case in the main revision itself, for the consideration of this court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though Sub-section 2 of Section 167 of the Code provides for the maximum period of 90 days, within which, the charge sheet shall be filed by the investigating agency, otherwise, under the said provision, the accused shall have the right to seek for a statutory bail, the said time can be extended in so far as the case against these petitioners and other accused persons, as the alleged offences were not only under the provisions of Indian Penal Code but also under Section