IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2009 Mohsin Abdulla Shaikh ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Nitin Sejpal and Miss Pooja Bhojne for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 23RD JANUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant seeking bail on the ground that the chargesheet was not filed by the police within a period of 90 days from the date of remand and, therefore, it is submitted that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in view of the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 6.7.2008. The Applicant was arrested on the same day and on the same day he was produced before the learned Magistrate, who had remanded him to the police custody. The period of 90 days expired on 3.10.2008. The Court Clerk has made a noting that on 4.10.2008 till 4.30 p.m., the chargesheet has not been filed. It is, therefore, submitted that even if it is held that the chargesheet was filed at 4 p.m., it was filed on 91st day and, therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Both the learned Magistrates have come to the conclusion that the chargesheet was filed on the 90th day and, therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to get benefit under the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The law laid down on this point is well settled that if the chargesheet is not filed within 60 days or 90 days as laid down under the provisions of section 167 (2), a mandatory indefeasible right accrues in favour of the Applicant and irrespective of the merits of the case, the Applicant has to be released on bail. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1986 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 321 (1986) 3 SCC 141 has held that while calculating the period of 90 days, the period, on which the Applicant is remanded, is to be taken as the starting point from which the period of 90 days should be calculated. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investiation, Special Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni reported in 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 554 (1192) 3 SCC 141. 6. In my view, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. If the period of 90 days is calculated from date of remand i.e. 6.7.2008, 90 days expired on 3.10.2008, on which admittedly the chargesheet was filed and it was not filed on the next date. Both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court have erred in calculating the period of 90 days and have erroneously held that the chargesheet was filed on 90th day on 4.10.2008. The impugned order, is therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. The Applicant be released on bail in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant, however, shall report to Naupada Police Station twice in a week for a period of six months and, thereafter, once in a week till pending the hearing and final disposal of the trial. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. If any complaint is received by the police, the bail granted to the Applicant shall be cancelled. 8. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.