Court Confirms Remand Date Exclusion in Bail Period Calculation Under Cr.P.C. Section 167(2), Dismissing Petition.

The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to Magisterial custody should be excluded when calculating the 60-day or 90-day period for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. This decision aligns with the precedent set by the SC in State of M.P. v. Rustam, where the day of remand is excluded from the computation period. The petitioner's argument to include the remand date was deemed without merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition and discharge of the rule.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days for seeking statutory bail.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this writ petition was to determine whether the date on which the accused is produced before the Court and remanded to the Magisterial custody should be included or excluded in completing the period of 60 days or 90 days, as required for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner argued that the date of remand should be included based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Chaganti Satyanarayana and others vs. State of A.P., while the Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) relied on the decision in Ravi Prakash Singh alias Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, where the Apex Court held that the date of remand should be excluded from the computation of the period.

3. The Court examined the judgment in Ravi Prakash Singh and noted that the Supreme Court had previously established in State of M.P. v. Rustam that the day of remand should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period, with the day of challan filing being included. Consequently, the Court concluded that the date of remand should be excluded from the calculation under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Based on the above analysis, the Court found that the petitioner's argument to include the date of production before the Court in the computation of the 90-day period was no longer valid in light of the established legal principles. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the argument presented.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, affirming the interpretation of the law regarding the exclusion of the date on which the accused is produced before the Court in determining the period for seeking statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

---