RAVI PRAKASH SINGH @ARVIND SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 241, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 241 
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH @ARVIND SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 325 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 167(2) - Bail -
Refusal to accused, when - Appellant surrendered before 
the Magistrate on 5. 7.2013 -Application filed on 03.10.13 
for release on bail u/s. 167(2) proviso, on the ground that the C 
charge sheet was not filed- However, on 03.10.2013 itself, 
endorsement in the order sheet by the Magistrate that the 
charge sheet has already been received - Rejection of bail 
application by the Magistrate as also the Sessions Judge -
Petition u/s. 482 Cr.PC. seeking quashing of the order passed D 
by the Sessions .Judge and the Magistrate - Dismissed by 
the High Court - On appeal, held: High Court justified in 
dismissing the petition u/s. 482, and upholding the refusal of 
bail to appellant - While computing period of ninety days, E 
the day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial 
custody should be excluded, and the day on which cha/Ian 
is fikJd in the court, should be included - Date 05. 07. 13 is to 
be excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on 
ninethieth day, i.e., 03.10.13 - Thus, no infringement of s. 
F 
167(2) of the Code. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: While computing period of ninety days, the 
day on which the accused was remanded to the judicial G 
custody should be exclud~d, and the day on which 
challan is filed in
the court, should be included. In the 
instant case, date 05.07 .13 is to be excluded and, as such, 
241 
H

242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A the charge sheet was filed on ninethieth day, i.e., 03.10.13. 
Therefore, there is no infringement of section 167(2) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court 
did not err in law in dismissing the petition u/s. 482 of 
the Code, and upholding the refusal of bail to appellant 
B prayed by him u/s. 167(2) of the Code. [Para 12, 13) 
[248-C-D] 
c 
State of M.P v Rustam and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 
221 - relied on. 
Powell Nwawa Ogechi v The State (Delhi Administration) 
1986 (3) Crimes 577; State of Maharashtra v Sharan B. 
Sarda; N. Nureya Reddy 1983 (2) Crimes 254; N. Nureya 
Reddy and Anr. v. State of Orissa 1985 CRLJ 939 (Orissa); 
Chaganti Satyanarayana and others v. State of Andhra 
D Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141: 1986 (2) SCR 1128 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
E 
1986 (3) Crimes 577 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
1983 (2) Crimes 254 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
1985 CRLJ 939 (Orissa) 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
1986 (2) SCR 1128 
Referred to. 
Para 11 
F 
1995 Supp (3) sec 221 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 325 of 2015 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous 
No. 48019 of 2013 
Nagendra Rai, Smarhar Singh, Prerna Singh, Aakash 
H Kumar, Shantanu Sagar for the Appellant.
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH@ARVIND SINGH 
243 
v. STATE OF BIHAR 
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Roshni Srivastava for the A 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2013 passed by B 
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous 
No. 48019 of 2013 whereby said Court has dismissed the 
petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973 (for short "the Code") and declined to interfere with the 
order dated 22.10.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, In-
C 
charge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Bail Petition No. 542 of 2013, 
and upheld the refusal to release the appellant on bail under 
Section 167(2) of the Code. 
2. Brieffacts of the case are that appellant Ravi Prakash 
D 
Singh @ Arvind Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Kaimuron 5.7.2013 in connection with Crime No. 
89 of 2013, registered at Police Station, Chainpur, relating to 
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 
and Section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 
E 
27 of Arms Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 
19.7.2013. His remand was extended under Section 167 of 
the Code from time to time, and the last remand under said 
provision was granted till 3.10.2013. On 3.10.2013, the 
appellant moved an application under Section 167(2) of the 
F 
Code for his release on the ground that the charge sheet has 
not been filed. On the same day, i.e.,
3.10.2013, it was 
endorsed in the order sheet by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
that as per report of the clerk of the Court, charge sheet has 
already been received, as such, the bail application moved 
under Section 167(2) of the Code was rejected by the G 
Magistrate on the very day and further remand order was 
passed under Section 209 of the Code. Endorsement "seen" 
was also made by the Magistrate on 3.10.2013 on the charge-
sheet. 
H
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
3. On 22.10.2013, the case was committed to the Court 
of Sessions Judge. The applicant moved bail application No. 
542 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua 
seeking bail on the ground that he was entitled to be released 
on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. He further pleaded 
B that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in law in rejecting 
his bail application on said ground. However, the In-charge 
Sessions Judge, who disposed of the above bail application, 
also opined that since the charge sheet had already been 
submitted, as such, the appellant was not entitled to bail on 
C the ground that charge-sheet was not received within time. 
4. On this, appellant Ravi Prakash Singh @Arvind Singh 
appears to have moved a petition under Section 482 of the 
Code before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, praying 
o that order passed by the Sessions Judge, as above, and the 
one passed by the Magistrate be quashed. But the High Court 
also took the view that since the charge sheet had already 
been filed within the period of ninety days, as such, it did not 
E 
F 
find any error in the orders passed by the courts below. 
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the original record of the case. 
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code reads as 
under: -
"167(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person 
is forwarded under this section may, whether he has 
or not jurisdiction to try
the case, from time to time, 
authorise the detention of the accused in such custody 
G 
as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding 
fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction 
to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers 
further detention unnecessary, he may order the 
accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such 
H 
jurisdiction:
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH@ARVIND SINGH 
245 
v. STATE OF BIHAR [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
Provided that-
A 
(a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the 
accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the 
police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is 
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, 
but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the B 
accused person in custody under this paragraph for 
a total period exceeding-
(i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an 
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for C 
life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten 
years; 
(ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any 
other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period 
of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, 
D 
the accused person shall be released on bail if he 
is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every 
person released on bail under this sub-section 
shall be deemed to be so released under the 
provisions of Chapter XXXlll for the purposes of E 
that Chapter; 
(b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention of the 
accused in custody by the police under this section 
unless the accused is produced before him in person 
for the first time and subsequently every time till the 
F 
accused remair:is in the custody of the police, but the 
Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial 
custody on production of the accused either in person 
or through the medium of electronic video linkage; 
(c) No Magistrate of
the second class, not specially 
empowered in this behalf by the high Court, shall 
authorize detention in the custody of the police. 
G 
Explanation I. - For the avoidance of doubts, it is 
hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the 
H
246 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall 
be detained in Custody so long as he does not furnish 
bail. 
Explanation II. - If any question arises whether an 
accused person was produced before the Magistrate 
as required under clause (b), the production of the 
accused person may be proved by his signature on 
the order authorizing detention or by the order certified 
by the Magistrate as to production of the accused 
person through the medium of electronic video 
linkage, as the case may be. 
Provided further that in case of a woman under 
eighteen years of age, the detention shall be 
authorized to be in custody of a remand home or 
recognized social institution." 
Above Proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of 
the Code provides that the Magistrate shall not authorize 
detention of an accused in custody in which the investigation 
E relating to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life 
or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and if the 
investigation not completed within ninety days, the accused 
shall be entitled to be released on bail. 
F 
7. 
Admittedly, the appellant surrendered before the 
Magistrate on 5.7.2013. It is also not disputed that on 3.10.2013 
the appellant moved an application for his release on bail under 
proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 
However, the order sheet of the case shows that there is 
G endorsement of the Magistrate on
3.10.2013 that the charge 
sheet has already been received. 
8. 
The charge sheet against the appellant, in the original 
record, shows that the Investigating Officer signed it and 
submitted the same on 30.9.2013. Though the clerk concerned 
H has not made any endorsement as to when actually the charge
RAVI PRAKASH SINGH@ARVIND SINGH 
247 
v. STATE OF BIHAR [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
sheet was received, but there is endorsement of the Chief A 
Judicial Magistrate which shows that he has mentioned "seen" 
on 3.10.2013 and signed at the top of the first page of the 
charge sheet. Order sheet of the court of the Magistrate also 
corroborates that on 3.10.2013 the clerk concerned reported 
to Chief Judicial Magistrate that the charge sheet had already 
B 
been received. 
9. 
It is argued on behalf of the learned senior counsel 
for the appellant that the appellant should have been given 
benefit of Section 167(2) of the Code. According to him, it c 
was 91 st day of detention on 3.10.2013. It is further contended 
by Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel, that even Sunday 
or holiday on ninetieth day cannot deprive the benefit of proviso 
(a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. In support of 
his arguments he relied upon cases of Powell Nwawa Ogechi D 
v. The State (Delhi Administration)1 and State of 
Maharashtra v. Sharan B. Sarda2. In Sharan B. Sarda 
(supra) single Judge of Bombay High Court, and in Powel 
Nwawa Ogechi (supra) the Division Bench of Delhi High Court 
took the view that even if last day for filing charge sheet is 
E 
holiday, the accused cannot be deprived of benefit of Section 
167(2) of the Code. 
10. Contrary to this, in N. Nureya Reddy and another 
v. State of0rissa3, the Division Bench of Orissa High Court, 
F 
interpreting the provisions of
Section 167(2) of the Code read 
with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, held that if ninetieth 
day is a holiday, filing of charge sheet on the next day should 
be treated sufficient compliance of filing of charge sheet within 
a period of ninety days and it cannot be said that provision G 
contained in Section 167(2) of the Code is infringed. 
1 1986 (3) Crimes 577 
2 1983 (2) Crimes 254 (Short Note) 
3 1985 CRLJ 939 (Orissa) 
H
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
11. In Chaganti Satyanarayana and others v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh', it has been held by this Court that period 
of ninety days under Section 167(2) of the Code shall be 
computed from the date of remand of the accused and not 
from the date of his arrest under Section 57 of the Code. 
B However, in the present case, we have to see the relevant date 
as the date when the accused surrendered and remanded by 
the court. 
12. In State of M.P. v. Rustam and others5, this Court 
c has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety 
days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the 
judicial custody should be excluded, and the day on which 
challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being so, 
in our opinion, in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be 
o excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on ninetieth 
day, i.e., 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of 
Section 167(2) of the Code. 
13. For the reasons, as discussed above, in our opinion, 
E the High Court has not erred in law in dismissing the petition 
under Section 482 of the Code, and upholding the refusal of 
bail to appellant prayed by him under Section 167(2) of the 
Code. 
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record 
F be sent back forthwith. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed. 
• (1986) 3 sec 141 
s 1995 Supp (3) sec 221