Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole petitioner for quashing of the Order dated 21-10-2000 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas, Bokaro has rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The short facts giving rise to the application that the petitioner has been made an accused in Chandankyari PS Case No. 66 of 2000 for the offence under Sections 379, 411, 414, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that illegal mining work is being carried on and the local criminals are involved in extortion of Rs. 50-100/- each truck passing through Manpur Chowk and Bhojudih More. On this information, the police officials reached Manpur chowk and saw a number of bags containing coal but the people gathered there already fled away.
On enquiry from the local people, they came to know that the accused-persons including the petitioner were involved in the extortion and illegal mining of coal. On the basis of the said statement, the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended and remanded in the case but charge-sheet was not submitted within 60 days of the remand. Thereafter, a petition for release under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, but the learned Magistrate rejected the petition by the impugned order on a wrong assumption that for offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment provided is 10 years and submission of charge-sheet in such cases is a period for 90 days. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in rejecting the petition on wrong assumption that 90 days will be applicable in the case under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the petitioner is entitled to be released for the offence under Section 386, IPC, if the charge-sheet within 60 days has not been submitted. It is also submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed in this case, though 60 days in the custody has already been completed from the day of remand. The learned Counsel also relied upon the cases reported in 1997 (1) East Cr C 774 Sanjeev Kumar Tulsyan@Pappu v. State of Bihar and 1998 (1) East Cr C 605 Mrinal Yadav v. State. It was clearly held in both the cases that if a charge-sheet is not filed within a prescribed period of 60 days, the accused is entitled to bail and the maximum sentence under Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act is up to 10 years and as such, charge-sheet accordingly could have been submitted within 60 days from the date of remand of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. also conceded in course of argument that in view of the decisions of this Court, the charge-sheet could have been submitted within 60 days in such cases.
5. Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and was also be liable to fine.
Section 167(2)(i) and (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years
(ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,...
6. Apparently, Section 386, IPC denotes about sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, but Section 167(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealt with about 90 days where investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. Thus, it is quite clear that term 'not less than 10 years' is not to be confused with the term 'up to 10 years'.
In a case, where maximum punishment is up to 10 years, the period of detention, which is permissible under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is only sixty days. Thus, it appears that maximum sentence under Section 386, IPC is up to 10 years and as such, the charge-sheet accordingly could have been submitted within 60 days from the date of remand of the petitioner. But, apparently in the instant case, the charge-sheet has not been submitted by the police within a period of 60 days from the date of remand of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner, in my opinion, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that no charge-sheet has been submitted within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of remand of the petitioner/the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Accordingly, I find merit in this application, which is allowed. The order dated 21-10-2000 is, hereby, quashed. In the result, the petitioner (Dilip Ojha) is directed to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CLM Chas, Bokaro, in Chandankyari PS Case No. 66/2000 G.R. Case No. 319/2000.