Default bail computation excludes the day of arrest when counting the sixty-day period under Section 167(2) CrPC.

For computing the sixty-day period under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC for default bail, the day of arrest was not to be counted. The Court treated the relevant starting point as the date on which the Magistrate authorised detention, and held that inclusion of the arrest date was not warranted on the facts. As the challan was not filed within the period argued by the petitioner, the bail claim failed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the day of arrest was to be included while computing the sixty-day period under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail.

Analysis: The petition for bail rested solely on the contention that the challan had not been filed within sixty days of arrest. The detention was authorised by the Magistrate on the next day after arrest, and the question was whether the day of arrest itself could be counted for the purpose of the proviso. On the facts, the Court held that the relevant period had to be counted from the date on which the Magistrate authorised detention, and the inclusion of the arrest date was not warranted within the scope of the proviso.

Conclusion: The day of arrest was not includible in the sixty-day computation, and the petition for bail was dismissed.

---