Interpretation of "not less than ten years" under bail custody rules excludes offences punishable up to ten years without a minimum term.

The phrase "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) CrPC covers only offences carrying a statutory minimum punishment of ten years or more. An offence under Section 386 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment that may extend to ten years but does not prescribe a minimum term of ten years, therefore falls outside that category. The distinction remains between offences attracting the ninety-day custody period and other offences governed by the sixty-day period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" in proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes an offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years.

Analysis: The provision in Section 167(2) distinguishes offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, for which custody may extend up to ninety days, from other offences for which the period is sixty days. The phrase "not less than ten years" means a prescribed punishment of ten years or more as a clear minimum term. Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes imprisonment which may extend to ten years, but does not prescribe a minimum of ten years, so it does not fall within that category.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not covered by proviso (a)(i) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order granting bail on expiry of sixty days was therefore not sustainable, and the appeal fails.

---