CRIMINAL REVISION No.1303 OF 2009 ******** Against the order dated 8.6.2009 passed by C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in Hajipur Town P.S. case no.256 of 2000. ******** Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Singh, son of Birendra Singh, Resident of Mohalla-shrikrishna Nagar, Quarter no.57, P.S.-Budha Colony, District-Patna-----------(Petitioner) Versus STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------(Opp. Party) ********** For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, A.P.P. ********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J There is no need to mention the fact or merit of the case as the release of the petitioner is claimed under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code including section 27 of the Arms Act, petitioner surrendered and was taken into custody on 6.6.2009. After completion of 90 days rather on 92 days a petition was filed to release the petitioner under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly finding no chargesheet submitted in the case petitioner was released. Accroding to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 6th June, 2009 the day on which he was allowed bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Saturday and petitioner was in jail custody, so bail bond could be furnished on 8.6.2009 on Monday, - 2 - the working day and that is refused on the ground that after passing of the order and before furnishing of the bail bond chargesheet against this petition was also filed. This much only is challenged in this revision by making submission that once right under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is availed, that cannot be denied as being the same indefeasible right as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Mohan Lal Achariya Vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 Criminal Law Journal 183. I also agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order for refusal to accept the bail bond is not allowed to be sustained. Accordingly, same is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the court concerned is directed to accept the bail bond after its proper verification. Patna High Court, 28th August, 2009, AFR/Sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )