Court Upholds Bail; Police Custody Time Excluded from 90-Day Limit, Holiday Rule Not Applicable; State's Petition Dismissed.

The court confirmed the order granting bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It held that the period of police custody under Section 57 should be excluded from the 90-day computation, which begins from the Magistrate's authorization date, not the arrest date. It also ruled that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not extend the 90-day period if the last day is a holiday. The criminal writ petition by the State was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of police custody period under Section 57 while computing the 90-day period.
2. Computation method for the 90-day period.
3. Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in computing the 90-day period.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Police Custody Period under Section 57:

The court addressed whether the period of custody by the police under Section 57 should be excluded while computing the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant argued that the initial 24 hours of police custody should be excluded from the 90-day calculation. The court held that the words "total period of 60 days or 90 days" in Section 167(2) relate to the custody of the accused authorized by the Magistrate and do not include the initial 24 hours of detention by the police under Section 57. Therefore, the period of police custody under Section 57 is to be excluded while computing the 90-day period.

2. Computation Method for the 90-day Period:

The court examined how the 90-day period should be computed. It was argued that the period should be computed from the date the Magistrate authorizes the detention, excluding the initial 24 hours of police custody. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the period of 90 days should be calculated from the date the Magistrate authorizes the detention, not from the date of arrest. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Haru Das Gupta v. The State of West Bengal, which supported the exclusion of the initial detention period by the police.

3. Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:

The court considered whether the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, apply when the last day of the 90-day period falls on a holiday. The appellant argued that if the 90th day falls on a holiday, the period should be extended to the next working day. The court, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the computation of the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Code. The court emphasized that the right to be released on bail accrues the moment the 90-day period expires, regardless of whether the last day falls on a holiday or not. The court concluded that the accused's right to be released on bail cannot be defeated by the mere filing of a charge sheet on the next working day after the 90-day period has expired.

Conclusion:

The court confirmed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, granting bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the period of police custody under Section 57 should be excluded while computing the 90-day period, the computation should be from the date of authorization by the Magistrate, and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to extend the 90-day period if the last day falls on a holiday. The criminal writ petition filed by the State was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

---