Short Note : 1. This is an application for grant of bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The applicant is being prosecuted for causing murder of one Kunji on 25-10-1975. The facts are some what peculiar. On the following day i.e. on 26-10-1975, the father of the deceased Kunji reported that his son met with an accidental death, the same having been caused by a buffalo. As a result of the report made by the father of the deceased the police made investigation. An inquest was held. During the inquest or in the sub-sequent investigation, no one came forward to state that the death of Kunji was as a result of beating given by the accused applicant. About eight months after the incident, on an anonymous application the police again took up the investigation of the case. In this investigation, one Kamla stated that she had seen the deceased being kicked and beaten by the applicant. The police, therefore, prosecuted the applicant and 17 others including the father of the accused-applicant in connection with the death of Kunji. Since the other 17 persons were merely charged with offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, they Were released on bail. Held: It appears that no challan was filed within 60 days of the arrest of the applicant and the applicant moved the Additional Sessions Judge for being released u/s 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously thought that he could not exercise any jurisdiction and grant the bail to the applicant. It may be observed here that the provisions of section 167 (2) are mandatory and if the challan is not filed within 60 days of the arrest and the applicant is willing to furnish bail he must be released on bail. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge was thus clearly in ignorance of the mandatory provision of law as also the settled view in this regard; Be that as it may, now that the challan has been filed the case would have to be examined afresh in the light of the evidence the prosecution seeks to adduce in this case. It is true that the prosecution in this case examined the witnesses after a lapse of nearly 8 months and that even the father of the deceased seemed to be not supporting the prosecution case. The question then is whether a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of Kamla. 3. It would not be permissible at this stage to appreciate the evidence of Kamala and other corroborating evidence. Kamla's evidence seems to be to the effect that she saw Bihari kicking the deceased and giving him blows. Looking to the quality of the evidence in the case, I consider this to be a fit case where I would release the applicant on bail. I accordingly order that the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.