Default bail under section 167 CrPC must be claimed before challan filing; custody counts from arrest in the same case.

A statutory right to default bail under section 167 CrPC survives only until the challan is filed; if the accused does not avail of that right before filing, it is extinguished and custody thereafter is governed by bail on merits. In computing the prescribed custody period, the relevant date is the arrest or detention in the same case and transaction, not an earlier arrest in a separate FIR. The Court therefore treated the later arrest as the operative starting point for custody computation and held that the accused could seek bail afresh only on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused's right to bail under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 survived after the challan was filed belatedly. (ii) Whether the period for computing the prescribed custody period had to be counted from the original arrest in an earlier case or from the later arrest in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether the accused's right to bail under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 survived after the challan was filed belatedly.

Analysis: The right to bail accruing on expiry of the prescribed period is enforceable only so long as it is availed of before the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed, the custody of the accused is governed by the provisions relating to bail on merits, and the earlier statutory right stands extinguished if it was not exercised in time.

Conclusion: The belated filing of the challan did not preserve an indefeasible right to bail after the challan had already been filed.

Issue (ii): Whether the period for computing the prescribed custody period had to be counted from the original arrest in an earlier case or from the later arrest in the present case.

Analysis: Where the accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different transaction, the relevant period has to be computed from the date of detention or arrest in that case, not from the earlier arrest in another matter. The statutory period cannot be carried over from a separate investigation merely because the accused was previously in custody.

Conclusion: The custody period had to be computed from the later arrest in the present case, not from the earlier arrest in the other F.I.R.

Final Conclusion: The bail order was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded, with the accused to be taken into custody and at liberty only to seek bail afresh on merits before the Designated Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory right to bail on account of delay in filing the challan must be exercised before the challan is filed, and the period for release in a different case must be computed from the detention in that case itself.

---