ORDER Om Prakash Pradhan, J. - The short point involved in this revision is if the accused-revisionist was entitled to be released on bail on the expiry of 90 days from the date of first remand in the absence of a charge-sheet that had to be submitted by the police during the statutory period of 90 days. 2. Factual matrix leading to this revision is simple. It appears that the accused-revisionist was involved in offences under sections 498-A, 147, 364 and 304-B I.P.C., in the wake of crime registered at No. 421 of 1992, at P.S. Kotwali, Etawah. The first remand was granted by the learned Magistrate on 8.6.1992. It was on 7.9.1992 that an application was filed on behalf of the accused-revisionist that he be released on bail since the police has filed to submit the charge-sheet within the statutory period of 90 days. The learned Magistrate, by means of the impugned order, came to find that the period of 90 days was to expire on 8.9.1992 and, therefore, the application for release on bail was premature. Accordingly, the aforesaid application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. It is this order which has been assailed before this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel of the revisionist as also the Assistant Government Advocate. 4. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate that the first remand was granted to this accused on 8.6.1992. Accordingly, the period of 90 days expired on 6.9.1992, since there were two months of July and August of thirty one days each. It appears that the learned Magistrate, while computing the period of 90 days, did not keep in mind that two months during the interregnum were of thirty one days, each. 5. The right to bail under proviso (a) to section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is absolute. It is a legislative command and not court's discretion. If the investigating agency fails to file charge-sheet within the statutory period of 90/64) days, as the case may he, the accused in custody has to be released on bail provided he expresses his willingness to furnish bonds. If the charge-sheet is filed after 90/60 days, as the case may be, the bail cannot be refused after the expiry of the aforesaid period. If the charge-sheet is filed after 90/60 days, as the case may be, the bail cannot be refused after the expiry of the aforesaid period. The order for release on bail may, however, be cancelled under section 437 (5) or under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 6. In the instant case as already indicated above, the period of 90 days expired on 6.9.1992 and the application on behalf of the accused-revisionist for release on bail was filed on 7.9.1992. During this statutory period of 90 days, the charge-sheet was not submitted by the police and, therefore, the accused-revisionist had an absolute right to he released on hail in view of his willingness to furnish bonds. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed illegality in rejection the application for release on bail even after the expiry of 90 days from the date of first remand. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.9.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah is hereby set aside with a direction to him to admit the accused-revisionist to hail in view of the clear mandate of the Legislature engrafted in proviso (a) of section 167(2) Cr.P.C.