ORDER B. Prasad, J. Heard Shri S. D. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri K. K. Jha Kamal, A. P.P. for the State. 2. At the time of making his submissions, Shri Mishra has confined it only to Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was his submission that in the instant case the petitioner was remanded to custody on 24.7.1987 by the order of the Magistrate and as will appear from the note in the margin of the order sheet of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 23.10.87 that the charge sheet in this case was received in the G. R. Office on 22.10.1987. It has not been disputed that 22.10.1987 was a holiday and therefore this endorsement itself bears the date of 23.10.1987. Shri Mishra has submitted that on proper calculation the period of PO days since the date of remand expires on 21.10.1987 itself and therefore even of this note on the margin of the order sheet is accepted as correct the charge sheet was received on the 91st day, though in the order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner probably by some mis-calculation 22.10.1987 was calculated to be 90th day. 3. Shri K. K. Jha Kamal the learned A.P. P. has conceded that under the facts and circumstances of this case 90th day expired on 21.10.1987. 4. In this connection Shri Mishra has drawn my attention to the case of C. Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 2130) according to which the period of 90 days will begin to run from the date of remand of the accused by the Magistrate and not from the earlier date when the accused was arrested. 5. Shri Kamal the learned A. P. P. also agrees to this interpretation of law as submitted by Sri Mishra. Further he also relies on the case of Matbar Parida vs. State of Orissa, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 220 ). Relying on this decision the learned A.P.P. has submitted that howsoever henious the crime may be, the accused has to be released under the provision of Section 167 of the Code if the charge sheet is not received within 60 days as pronounced in this decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relying on this decision the learned A.P.P. has submitted that howsoever henious the crime may be, the accused has to be released under the provision of Section 167 of the Code if the charge sheet is not received within 60 days as pronounced in this decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of these decisions the learned A. P. P. has conceded that so far as this point of law is concerned the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Shri Kamal the learned A. P. P. has however made it clear that as a matter of fact this is Dot only a case under section 384 of the Indian Penal Code but also under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations against the petitioner are of very serious in nature. Therefore he would like to seriously oppose the prayer for bail so far as the merits of this case are concerned. 7. In view of these submissions made above and also in view of the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate; Ranchi in Kotwali P. S. Case No. 478, 87.