The court confirms that an accused is entitled to default bail if a charge sheet is not filed within 60 days, regardless of subsequent charges.

1. This petition under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. of Criminal Procedure (In short 'the Code' has been preferred by the petitioners against order dated 25-08-2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 56/2014, dismissing revision of the petitioners.

2. Police Station Bakimongra, District Korba registered crime under Crime No. 76/2014 against the petitioners on the allegation that they have committed offence under S.420/34 IPC and S.4, S.5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (In short 'the Act'). The petitioners were arrested on 14-05-2014 and produced before the Magistrate on the same date for remand up to 16-05-2014. As according to the petitioners, charge - sheet was not filed within a period of 60 days from the date of remand i.e. on or before 13-07-2014, an application for grant of default bail under S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed. That application was, however, rejected on 15-07-2014. Aggrieved by rejection of application, revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which too has been dismissed, giving rise to this petition.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were charged for commission of offence under S.420/34 of IPC and S.4, S.5 of the Act. The investigation related to aforesaid offence only which are not offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years. Therefore, upon failure to file charge - sheet within a period of 60 days as provided in S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners were entitled to default bail as they had applied for grant of bail under S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 15-07-2014 itself before filing of charge - sheet and were prepared to furnish bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made in the petition by submitting that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of bail because the investigating agency had later on, also registered offence under S.467, S.468 of IPC. In such cases, the petitioners would not be entitled to be released on default bail, upon expiry of 60 days because in such cases, the Magistrate is empowered to authorize detention up to 90 days.

5. The order passed by the Court below goes to show that the petitioners were arrested on 14-05-2014 and on that date itself, they were produced before the Magistrate for taking remand. This is clear from order sheet dated 14-05-2014. The Magistrate granted remand till 5 p.m. of 16-05-2014.

6. As is reflected from the records, the petitioners moved an application for grant of default bail on 15-07-2014. The order sheets which have been placed on record would show that till 15-07-2014, offence under S.467, S.468 was not registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have also placed on record the order sheet dated 16-05-2014, by which, further remand up to 29-05-2014 was granted. In this order also, remand was sought for investigation into alleged commission of offence under S.420/34, IPC and S.4, S.5 of the Act and there is no reference in the order that the police sought remand in connection with investigation for the offences under S.467, S.468 of IPC. In the aforesaid factual premise, it has to be seen whether the petitioners were entitled to default bail on account of non - submission of charge - sheet within the stipulated period, by giving the benefit of provisions under S.167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. S.167 of the Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours, it cast duty upon the police officer to produce any person arrested and detained in custody before the nearest Magistrate, if investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours as fixed by S.57 of the Cr.P.C. In sub-section (2) of