i^ A&plicants fioJfi«!l Ress&ond^nt HI^H COURT OF CHH^TTESeARM <<T BIUSPUR Crimlno.l ^lsc. Pestjtion No.ZSl of 900B 1. Geychcnd aljas Raju, S/o S^rl Kaiiu Ntshaci, Aged about 30 years, ftesident of 6et &afai - Bhaiumada 2. Lallu a!sas Raju, S/o Nandau ^Qed about 25 years, ftesident of Bhalurnada, Both 1+ie TohsH of Kotmo., District - Anuppur (MP.) yersftt^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Distt. Baikunthpur - Kor&a (C.Q.) ADplication Under Sectson 482 of the Codte of Criminal Procedyre (SB; Hon'bie AAr. T.P. Shorma, J.) Present: 5hrs Prokash Tlwari, learned counsel for the appliaxnt. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, iearned Panel Lawyer for the State, OR^L ORDER (Passed on 28-11-2008) Jhe petstion' is directed against 1lie ordar dated 05-05-2008, passed In Criminal Revision No.04/2008, by the ^ssbns Judge, BaJkunthpur afflri^ing tlie order dated 03-11- 2007 passed in Crtminal Co.se No.329/2007 where-by the learned Chief JudiiciaJ M^gistrate, BaiRunthpur has rejected the appjjcation filed on behalf of tiie appliawts under Se-ctjon 167(2) ^^^^ €P^' ^...:^!'?-" ^;~^sy>.' -2-- of the Code of Criminal Prlocedure,197^ on the ground that the application Is premature. 2. bBarned counsel for the applicants submits that the q^plicants were arrested on 05-08-2007 and they werc produoBd before 1+ie Court on 06-08-2007. They were In custody from 06- 08-2007 to 03-11-2007. Learned counsel fur-th^r subtnitted that on 90th dsy, ifis qsplicGnts havs fiSed an GppSication undsr Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure4973 stating that the alleged offence ?s punlshable with de@'rii/smprisonment for !lfe, -Hierefore, sf charge-sheet is not f?!ed wlthjn 90 days of ^e arre<st of the accused, then they are entstJBd for bail but the same has been dismissed by the Court below. 3 Learned counsel for 'rtie applicants placed reliance on the Judgrp^nt in 1+?e matter of ^ahcsh ¥. State ef I^.P,/ reportBd in 2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 47 m wh'ch it was held that 'f after stipu'ated t'me as provided »n proviso of sub-^ction (2) of Sectlon 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any appSication for bai! js fjjed ond filing of such ball petitson, sybseqyently chorge sheet Is flled then 1+^e petition for boi! CQnnot be rejected on the ^round of subsequent fiiing of the charge sheet. 4. In the instont case, it is not disputcd that the charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecutlon within 90 days ond eyen sccording to qspjicsnts, thsy hsvs filed sm qspSiostion on 90 day because the prosecution has not filed the charge-sheet wlthin the stipuiated persod m accordance with provlso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of 1+>e Code of Critninal PrQcedure, 1973. If the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days of the detentbn of the accused then in accordance with provlso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminat Procedyre, 1973, the accused is entitled for boi!. In 1+ie present co.se., 1+ie prosecution has fi!ed ^^^' Kvr -3 the chargs sheet on 90 dcy, i.e. within the stlpulsted perbd, therefore, no right hos been accrued in fayour of th% q?plicants for their release In accordance with proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminat Procedure. The Court betow has r'i9ht?y rejected the application of the appijconts. The Court betow has not comwitted any jjlegallty and 1+ie petitjon being deyoid of werit is Siable to be diswissed. 5. Accordingiy, the petition is hereby dismissed. 6. In view of the above order, I.A. No.01/2008, an QppliccEtion for orant of boil stands dlsposed of. ; Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge