IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.502 of 2009 KAMLESH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 26.03.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision application is directed against order dated 10.2.2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, later on in the day, whereby be refused to accept the bail bond of the petitioner as charge sheet was already received by them. Before this Court considers the issue in question, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case. 3. The petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 302/307 and other minor sections of the I.P.C. In view of nature of issue involved in this case, there is no need to go into the merits of the allegation. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was remanded in this case on 11.12.2008. Admittedly ninety days of custody was completed on 9.2.2009. Furthermore as no charge sheet was submitted within 90 days, the petitioner filed an application under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for compulsary bail. Leaned magistrate called for a report from office as to whether final form (charge sheet) was submitted or not. As GR office reported that no charge sheet was submitted in this case, the court rightly enlarged the petitioner on bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing of bail bond. The petitioner submits that he was always willing to furnish his bail bond which was also duly furnished on the same day. After furnishing of such bail bond, office reported that charge sheet has been received subsequently. The magistrate believing that once charge sheet is submitted, right of the petitioner to benefit under section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. comes to an end, and as such did not accept the bail bond so furnished. - 2 - 4. Learned counsel further submits that latter part of order not accepting the bail bond filed by the petitioner pursuant to grant of bail earlier, is in teeth of settled law in case of Uday Mohan Lal Acharya vs. state of Maharastra, reported in 2001 Cr L J 183. 5. I am in full agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once bail bond has been filed pursuant to grant of bail, the same cannot be rejected on the ground that before acceptance of bail bond, charge sheet has been filed. 6. It is common practices that bail bond of accused are generally accepted late in the day during closing hours. The acceptance of bail bond is more in nature of official work than one on the judicial side. 7. An accused derives an indefeasible right for being enlarged on bail, provided he has filed an application for bail and is willing to furnish bail bond, before filing of charge sheet within statutory period as mentioned in 267(2) a. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, latter part of the order dated 10.2.2009, passed by the learned magistrate is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. Consequently, petitioner as indicated above is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/ with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Patepur Police Station case no. 154 of 2008. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J)