( 1 ) BY this Order Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 517 of 1983 Karan Singh and two others v. State of M. P. and 518 of 1983 Bahram and another v. State of M. P. are also disposed of as all these three bail applications arise out of Crime No. 112 of 1982 registered under sections 395, 397 and 452 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

( 2 ) ON the night intervening 27/18-10-1982 there were two dacoities in village Padlye, Police Station Khalwa district Khandwa in which 12 to 13 dacoits participated. The first dacoity was committed in the house of Bhagirath Prasad and cash of Rs. 6000/-, gold ornaments weighing 51/2 Tolas and silver ornaments were looted. The second dacoity was in the house of Mangilal in which cash of Rs. 55,000/- and gold and silver ornaments were looted. A report was lodged by Bhagirath on 28-10-1982 at 8. 15 p. m. in police station 25 kms. away. These 10 applicants and two coaccused Totaram and Karnsingh who are all residents of Chalpi were arrested in the evening of 19- 11-1982. On the memorandum of each of the applicants cash and ornaments were recovered. They were identified in the identification parade after 15 days of their arrest and the recovered properties were identified on 29-11-1982. The trial Court granted bail to co-accused Totaram because his active participation in the dacoity was not prima facie made out and he was also not identified. Another co-accused Karansingh was released on bail by this Court in M. Cr. C. No. 31 of 1983 on 20-1-1983 on similar grounds but this Court rejected the bail application of these 10 applicant. After rejection of the bail applications, challan was filed in the case on 17-2-1983 and then fresh applications for bail were moved under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the challan has been filed on last day and, as such they are entitled to be released on bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the challan was filed on the 90th day and, as such, he rejected the bail applications.

( 3 ) THE present applications are pressed firstly on the ground that there is wrong calculation by the trial court and the applicants ought to have been released on bail as the challan was filed on 91st day and secondly on merits saying that there was undue delay in holding identification parade and the seizure of cash from each of the applicants is of no consequence, the ornaments recovered are of common use and they cannot be connected with dacoity, so they be released on bail as they arc already under detention for more than four months.

( 4 ) SECTION 167 (1) provides that when any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed and there arc grounds for believing that the accusation is well founded, he has to be produced before a judicial Magistrate for remand within 24 hours. Under sub-section 21 the Magistrate can grant remand not exceeding 15 days at a time but police custody cannot be given exceeding 15 days in the whole. Under the proviso the Magistrate may authorize detention of the accused person beyond the period of 15 days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so but no Magistrate shall authorize detention of the accused in, custody under this proviso for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and on the expiry of the period of 90 days the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to furnish bail.

( 5 ) NOW the question to be considered is how these 90 days have to be calculated. Proviso to Section 167 (2) provides that on the expiry of the period of 90 days the accused has to be released on bail if the challan is not filed. The Code does not provide as to how this 90 days period has to be calculated. So we have to refer to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act which giv