Judgment:
1. This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No.32/2010 of Vidhanasoudha Police Station, registered on 08.07.2010 for the offences under Sections 302 and 309, IPC.
2. The petitioner is the accused in the case in which the murder of a lawyer took place in the premises of the High Court on 08.07.2010. The petitioner was taken into police custody immediately thereafter and since he was suffering from serious ailment, he was admitted to Mallya Hospital, Bangalore. On 16.07.2010, it was decided that the petitioner maybe given treatment at the Victoria Hospital and accordingly, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital. On 09.09.2010, he was discharged from the hospital whereafter, he was produced before the Magistrate and the Magistrate remanded the petitioner to custody. The charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 302 and 309, IPC was filed on 23.11.2010.
3. Heard Sri N.S. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage learned HCGP for the respondent State.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in custody right from 08.07.010 and therefore, the charge-sheet has not been filed within 90 days and hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Learned HCGP opposes the bail application and contends that the offence for which the petitioner is charge-sheeted is serious in nature and the murder has been committed in front of the Court hall, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and further the deceased is a lady advocate who has been done to death by stabbing her. He also submits that the post-mortem report indicates four injuries on the body of the deceased and the death is due to the result of multiple stab injuries on the deceased. Hence, he prays that the petition may be dismissed.
6. I have gone through the materials on record. The relief sought by this petitioner is purely technical in nature. Section 167, Cr.P.C. is enacted in order to facilitate investigation in cognizable case after 24 hours of the arrest of the accused and Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., provides that in a heinous case of offence, which is punishable for imprisonment above 10 years, the Investigating Officer can seek extension of remand of the accused for total period of 90 days and in all other cases, the period of remand shall be 60 days. In this case, the Magistrate gets the jurisdiction insofar as the remand is concerned on the date, when the accused was first produced before the Court. The accused was admittedly produced on 09.09.200 before the Magistrate for the first time and Section 167(2) says that the Magistrate could remand the accused to custody for 90 days for facilitating the investigation. Therefore, the period to be reckoned is from 09.09.2010, if Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., is followed strictly the Magistrate has no power to remand the petitioner for more than 90 days in all from the date on which he was first produced before the Magistrate. Nowhere under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. prescribes the date of the arrest as the reckoning period for commencing the period of 90 days. It is only from the date of the first production before the magistrate that has to be accounted for qualifying for what is called as “Default bail”. In this case, petitioner’s case does not come under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., for default bail and hence, the petition is dismissed.