The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the computation of 90 days for the purpose of extending default bail.

JUDGMENT

P.B. Bajanthri, J. - In the present petition, petitioners have sought for quashing of order dated 27.08.2018 by which their application under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Further, they have sought for releasing them on bail in case FIR No. 198, dated 28.05.2018 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 302 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dadri City, District Charkhi Dadri.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Inspector, informed scene of crime for registration of FIR read with complaint of one Sh. Khazan son of Ram Kumar that his brother Satyawan, who was working as a Peon in Bar Association, Dadri, had beaten mercilessly by Om Parkash Kalkal, Advocate Sandeep Rawaldhia, Naveen Marhata Advocate and two other associates. Due to beatings, Satyawan died. Thus, FIR No. 198 has been registered on 28.05.2018. Arising out of these facts and circumstances, petitioners were arrested on 28.05.2018. They have been produced before jurisdictional Magistrate on 29.05.2018. Default bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on 27.08.2018 and on the same day, challan was presented.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners apprised this Court on 07.09.2018 stating that after arrest on 28.05.2018, petitioners were produced before jurisdictional Magistrate on 29.05.2018 and they were remanded. He apprised that date of remand is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of 90 days so as to extend default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. On 07.09.2018, following order was passed:-

"Notice of motion for 04.10.2018.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish two sets of paper book to learned State counsel, during the course of the day.

In the present petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of order dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-4). It is an interpretation of Section 167(2) read with bail application filed prior to completion of 90th day. Perusal of the dates and events to the extent that petitioner had been arrested on 28.05.2018 and produced on 29.05.2018. Thereafter once again he was produced on 01.06.2018. He had filed bail application on 27.08.2018 before the presentation of the challan as is evident from endorsement issued on petitioner's bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"According to CIS, FIR No. 188 of 2018 challan not received till dated 27.08.2018.

Thus, it is evident that before filing challan petitioner had submitted bail application on 27.08.2018.

In view of these factual aspects, trial Court shall release him on interim bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to its entire satisfaction.

However, the petitioner shall not in any way indulge in any criminal activities and he shall also not influence the witnesses or otherwise interfere with the fair trial."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of main prayer relating to quash order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. or to confirm an interim bail granted on 07.09.2018, submitted that date of remand by the Judicial Magistrate, namely, 29.05.2018 is required to be included so also date of challan dated 27.08.2018 for the purpose of computation of 90 days. Further, it was submitted that challan was submitted after filing of bail application dated 27.08.2018 as is evident from the note relating to receipt of challan on 27.08.2018 which has been extracted in the order dated 07.09.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on number of decisions for the purpose of computation of 90 days. The latest decisions are relevant for the purpose of considering the petitioners' grievance which are as under:-

"i) Pragyna Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra reported in , (2011) 10 SCC 445;

ii) Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam reported in , (20