Default bail and post-cognizance custody under CrPC were rejected; police detention and Section 309 custody were held lawful.

The initial 24 hours of police detention under Section 57 CrPC are distinct from Magistrate-authorised remand under Section 167, so that period is not counted within the statutory remand period; default bail therefore did not arise on the petitioner's computation. After the police report was filed, the Magistrate took cognizance and continued custody under Section 309, where a separate express remand order was not essential. The court also found reasonable grounds to believe the accused was involved in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, so bail was not warranted on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner acquired a right to bail on expiry of the remand period under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after exclusion of the initial 24 hours of police custody under Section 57; (ii) whether the Magistrate's order on filing of the charge-sheet amounted to taking cognizance and valid remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether bail was otherwise warranted on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner acquired a right to bail on expiry of the remand period under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after exclusion of the initial 24 hours of police custody under Section 57.

Analysis: The period of police custody under Section 57 is distinct from remand by a Magistrate under Section 167. The initial 24 hours available to the police do not form part of the remand period contemplated by Section 167. Counting the remand period from the time the Magistrate first authorised custody, the statutory maximum of 90 days expired on the date when the charge-sheet was filed. Consequently, the claim to default bail did not arise merely by reason of completion of 90 days in the manner asserted by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not become entitled to bail on the ground of expiry of the Section 167 remand period.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate's order on filing of the charge-sheet amounted to taking cognizance and valid remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether bail was otherwise warranted on merits.

Analysis: Once the police report was filed, the Magistrate applied judicial mind, took cognizance, and fixed the matter for the accused's production on a future date. In the scheme of Section 309, an express formula of remand was not indispensable after cognizance, and the earlier decision under the repealed Code could not govern the present provision. The custody after expiry of the Section 167 period was therefore supported by Section 309. On merits as well, the material disclosed reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was involved in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's custody order was valid under Section 309 and the petitioner was not entitled to bail on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petition for bail failed both on the question of statutory entitlement to release and on the merits of the accusation, and the existing custody was upheld as lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: After cognizance is taken on a police report, custody may be continued under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without a separate express remand order, and the initial 24 hours of police detention are not to be counted within the remand period under Section 167.

---