JUDGMENT

P. K. MOHANTY, J. — This is an application for grant of bail to the petitioner in terms of Sec. 167 (2) of the Code of Crimi¬nal Procedure, the charge-sheet having not been filed within sixty days of the date of detention.

2. The petitioner earlier had moved this Court for bail under Sec. 439, Cr.P.C., but on his prayer, the bail application was permitted to be withdrawn. The police having failed to file charge-sheet within sixty days of the detention, the petitioner moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of bail in terms of Section 167 (2), Cr.P.C., but the application having been rejected, this petition.

3. Shri B.S.Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 17.5.2002 for allegedly having committed offences punishable under Sec. 498-A/307/34, IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was remanded to custody and was continuing as such. An application was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for release of the petitioner in view of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., the police having failed to file charge-sheet. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on erroneous apprecia¬tion of fact and misinterpretation of law, has rejected the same.

4. Submission is made that the allegation against the petitioner in its entirety would call for maximum punishment of imprisonment upto ten years and fine under Sec. 307, IPC since the allegations are with regard to attempt of the petitioner to commit murder and no hurt is alleged to have been caused in the process. According to the learned counsel, the case is covered under the first part of Section 307, IPC and as such in view of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., the maximum period for which the peti¬tioner would be detained in custody is upto a period of sixty days. Since the learned Magistrate could not authorise detention of the petitioner beyond a period of sixty days, in view of the specific provision under Section 167 (2) (a) (ii), Cr.P.C., the petitioner was entitled as of right to be released on bail.

5. Prosecution case as per the FIR and the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner is the husband of the informant-wife. On 30.5.2002, Samsad Begum, the informant lodged a report in Cuttack Mahila P.S.that she had married Md. Naseem, the petitioner of Mastan Road, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack as per Muslim custom. According to the demand, her father gave all articles like Bajaj (Caliber) Motor-cycle, gold and silver ornaments as dowry as per the list given by the in-law’s family. Two or three months after marriage, her mother-in-law Fatima Bibi, sistering-law Ruksana Begum, Jobeda Begum, Naseem Khan the husband of the sister-in-law, Md. Nayeem, the elder brother of her husband and her husband-petitioner demanded Rs. 25,000/-, colour television and gas cooking stove. The demand having not been fulfilled, she was subjected to torture and was not given food inasmuch as she was assaulted and subjected to serious torture with threat to murder. There was some negotiation between her father and the members of her in-law’s house. Ulti¬mately, it is alleged that the in-law’s house forced the inform¬ant to commit suicide by hanging in the fan but she having not succumbed to the desire, the petitioner-husband, father-in-law and other relations named above, caught hold of her and Jobeda, the sister-in-law tried to tie the rope in her neck to get her hanged in the ceiling fan but she somehow managed to escape and fell down. Her father and other relations came and rescued her after they were informed of the same. A compromise was tried, but ultimately failed. The P.S.Case was started and after investiga¬tion charge-sheet was filed on 16.8.2002. However, bail applica¬tion was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 3.8.2002, out of which the present petition arises.

6. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the question that arises for consideration is as to