Statutory bail accrues on expiry of custody period; later charge-sheet and holiday rule do not defeat the right.

Police custody under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as distinct from Magistrate-authorised remand custody, so it was excluded when computing the 90-day period under Section 167(2). On expiry of that period, the accused acquired an enforceable right to bail if prepared to furnish bail, and a later filing of the charge-sheet did not defeat that accrued right. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was held inapplicable to extend the period merely because the last day fell on a holiday. The note states that the bail order was sustained because the statutory custody period had expired.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the period of custody under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to be excluded while computing the period of 90 days under Section 167(2); (ii) whether the expiry of 90 days entitled the accused to be released on bail as of right even though the charge-sheet was filed thereafter; (iii) whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to extend the period when the last day fell on a holiday.

Issue (i): Whether the period of custody under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to be excluded while computing the period of 90 days under Section 167(2).

Analysis: The custody contemplated by Section 167(2) was held to be the custody authorised by the Magistrate after production of the accused. The initial detention by the police under Section 57 was treated as distinct from such authorised custody. The expression "total period" in the proviso was construed to refer to custody under the Magistrate's remand, and the statutory scheme was read as restricting further detention only after the Magistrate's authorisation period.

Conclusion: The period under Section 57 was excluded while computing the 90-day period.

Issue (ii): Whether the expiry of 90 days entitled the accused to be released on bail as of right even though the charge-sheet was filed thereafter.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 167(2) was construed as creating an enforceable right to bail on expiry of the prescribed period if the accused was prepared to furnish bail. The filing of the charge-sheet after expiry of that period did not extinguish the accrued right. The Court also treated continued detention beyond that point as inconsistent with the statutory mandate and with personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The accused had an absolute right to be released on bail once the 90-day period expired, and the later filing of the charge-sheet did not defeat that right.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to extend the period when the last day fell on a holiday.

Analysis: Section 10 was held inapplicable because no provision in the Code directed or allowed the filing of the charge-sheet on a specified day or within a prescribed period in the sense required by that section. The statutory right under Section 167(2) arose on expiry of the prescribed custody period and could not be postponed merely because the last day was a holiday.

Conclusion: Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the grant of bail failed, and the order releasing the accused on bail was sustained on the ground that the statutory custody period had expired and the right to bail had accrued.

Ratio Decidendi: For computing the period under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the initial police custody under Section 57 is excluded, and on expiry of the prescribed period the accused acquires an enforceable right to bail that is not defeated by a later charge-sheet or by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

---