Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. The petitioner is being prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is still under investigation. Earlier prayer for bail of this petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn in Cr. Misc. 1545/91(R). 2. The present bail application has been filed under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly the Code) for release of the petitioner as no charge-sheet has been submitted within the stipulate period of 60 days. The matter was agitated before the Special Judge who, by the impugned order, dated 5-6-1991, has rejected that prayer holding that the entire provision of Section 167 of the Code is not applicable and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the privilege of bail under the mandatory provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code. Against that, this present petition has been filed in which assertion has been made that the petitioner is entitled to get bail under Section 167(2) of the Code on the admitted fact that charge-sheet has not been submitted within 60 days and the whole matter is still under investigation. 3. Heard Mr. S. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 4. It is the admitted position in this case that the petitioner was remanded by the Special Judge on 2-4-1991. It is also the admitted position, even according to the Special Judge, that charge-sheet has not been submitted in this case and the statutory period of 60 days has already terminated. 5. The point raised in this case is that the benefits of Section 167(2) of the Code is available to the accused in cases in which the accused is being tried by the Special Judge under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. 6. In this connection Sections 12-AA and 12-AA(c) and (d) of the E. C. Act was referred to. To shorten the matter, without going into the merits of the case, it appears that exactly a similar situation was dealt by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Honble Mr. Justice J. and Honble Mr. Justice Abhiram Singh in Cr. Misc. To shorten the matter, without going into the merits of the case, it appears that exactly a similar situation was dealt by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Honble Mr. Justice J. and Honble Mr. Justice Abhiram Singh in Cr. Misc. No. 8765/83 (R), reported in 1981 East Cr C 490 (Pat.) in which exactly similar matter was raised that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code is not appealable in cases tried under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court, while examining the whole scheme, after considering the entire aspect of the matter, has concluded in para 14 of the judgment, that the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Code is available to the accused who are being prosecuted or tried under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. It was held that if the accused is remanded under Section 167 of the Code and if no charge-sheet is submitted within the statutory period of sixty days, the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code will be applicable and the accused will be entitled to get bail if he is ready ti furnish bail bond. 7. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the point raised in this case is concluded by a Division Bench of this Court and there is no scope to come to any other conclusion. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner, Shanker Ram, is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (fiive thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, E. C. Act, Ranchi under the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kotwali P. S. case No. 191/91.