JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikiri, J. Whether the applicant/petitioner has become entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the question which has arisen for consideration. The learned ASJ vide her detailed order dated 13th July 2006 has held otherwise. The petitioner is not satisfied with the said order and claims that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. stand attracted in his case and, therefore. He is entitled to bail as a matter of right. We may take stock of some important dates in order to appreciate the controversy.

2. A written complaint dated 11th May 2006 was received by the superintendent of Police, CBI, AC, Zone II, New Delhi from one Mr. Rajiv Sharma. After going through this complaint, the Superintendent of Police in CBI found that the facts mentioned in the complaint, Prima facie, disclose commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `PC Act') against the petitioner herein. A regular case was, therefore, registered and entrusted to a Dy. Superintendent of Police for investigation. After the investigation petitioner was arrested on 11th May 2006. He was produced before the learned Special Judge, New Delhi doing CBI cases on 12th May 2006 and was remanded to police custody upto 16th May 2006. On 16th May 2006 the petitioner was sent to judicial remand Upto 30th May 2006, on 25th May 2006 he applied for regular bail which was dismissed by the Special Judge on 2nd June 2006. Likewise, second bail application was also dismissed on 9th June 2006, judicial remand of the petition in the meantime was extended from time to time. On 5th July 2006 the petitioner filed all application under Section l67(2) of the CrP.C. stating that period of 60 days from the date of arrest would expire on 9th July 2006. Prosecution, on the other hand, disputed this. A charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006. Thereafter application was taken up for hearing on 12th July 2006 and order dated 13th July 2006 has been passed dismissing the application.

3. Perusal of the impugned order would show that two contentions were raised by the petitioner, namely, (i) period of 60 days expired on 9th or 10th July 2006 and since thereafter charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006, the petitioner had become entitled to statutory bail and (b) the charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006 was defective and ineffective as it was not accompanied by order of sanction Under Section 19 of the 13C Act. Submission was that the petitioner being a public servant cannot be prosecuted without a sanction from the competent authority and if the charge-sheet is filed without such a sanction, it is to be treated as no charge-sheet in the eyes of law and thus, even as on 11th July 2006 there was no proper charge-sheet. Since 60 days had expired by that time, the petitioner has right to be enlarged on bail.

4. On the first issue the dispute was as to from which date the period of 60 days is to be counted. The petitioner was arrested on 11th May 2006 and was produced before the Court on 12th May 2006 on which date he was sent on police remand. According to the petitioner, the period was to be counted from the date of arrest after ignoring the date on which he was arrested. On this plea, if 60 days are to be counted from 12th May 2006, then this period expired on 10th July 2006. On the other hand, plea of the prosecution was that the period is to be Counted after the remand is given by the Court and as it happened on 12th May 2006 and that date has to be excluded, period of 60 days should start from 13th May 2006. On this reckoning 60 days period would expired on mid-night of 11th July 2006 and since challan was filed in the Court in the morning hours of 11th July 2006, the right of the petitioner to claim Statutory liability Under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. stood defeated. The learned Special Judge has accepted the contention of the prosecution and for this purpose reliance is pla