IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30591 of 2008 NARESH RAM … … Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party - - - - 3. 30.9.2008 The present petition has been filed seeking a direction for the release of the petitioner under Section 167(2) proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In light of the nature of the prayer for release, it is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case except that it was a case under Sections 489(b) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and that the petitioner was remanded to custody on 5.2.2008 in Lakhisarai P. C. Case No. 388 of 2007. The offence under Section 489(b) of the Indian Penal Code was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for either description for a period which may extend to 10 years and was also liable to fine. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extent to 7 years and was also liable to fine. Thus, it could safely be said that the total period of remand which the 2 Magistrate could authorise in respect of the petitioner was 90 days as may appear from the provision of Section 167(2)(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner filed a petition on 6.5.2008 indicating to the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai that the police had not submitted the final form(chargesheet) in the case and it was his 91st day of remand and, as such, he be directed to be released on bail under the provision of Section 167(2) Proviso Cr.P.C. Acordingly, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, passed an order directing the release of the petitioner on 6.5.2008 and directed the petitioner to file his bond. While the bond was to be filed, the chargesheet was received in the office of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and, as such, the bond was not accepted and the Magistrate refused to release the petitioner on bail. On these contentions the order for bail has been sought from this Court. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the present petition that the petitioner had moved 3 Criminal Revision before this Court, vide Cr. Revision No. 559 of 2008, and the same was rejected on 16.6.2008. As such, I do not find it appropriate to go into the merits of the order again, once it has been evaluated by a Bench of this Court and, as such, the prayer is dismissed. If the petitioner wants an order on merits of the matter, he may file a fresh petition. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)