S. D. JHA, J. ( 1 ) BY this application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. the applicants urge that they arc entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167 (2) (a) Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE contention of the applicants is that challan in the case was presented on the 91st day of their being produced for remand for before the Judicial Magistrate and the same having not been done within 90 days, they acquired a right to be released on bail and that they are willing to furnish surety as ordered by this Court and, there fore, they be admitted to bail. ( 3 ) AT the hearing, Shri T. R. Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicants submitted that a report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. not having been filed within 90 days arrest of the applicants, the right acquired by the applicants to be admitted to bail could not be taken away even though challan may have been filed later. He also submitted that mere fact that the accused-applicants later on filed applications and the same were rejected on merits in M. Cr. C. 1976192 and 2048/ 92 both decided on 7. 9. 1992, would not take away accrued right of applicants of being released on bail under the proviso (supra ). In support of his submissions Shri Gupta referred to a latest decision of the Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal. Desai v. State of Maharashtra1 (in Cr. A. No. 559 of 1992 ). ( 4 ) OPPOSING Shri Guptas contentions Shri Desai learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that the applicants after expiry of 90 days till challan if the case was filed did not present any application. This forfeited their right to be released on bail under the proviso referred to above. In support of his contentions Shri Desai referred to the following decisions (1) Nawal Sahani v. State of Bihar. (2) Shardulbhai v. State of Gujprat. (3) Abdul Wahid v. State of Maharastra. (4) Han Om v. State of U. P. . This forfeited their right to be released on bail under the proviso referred to above. In support of his contentions Shri Desai referred to the following decisions (1) Nawal Sahani v. State of Bihar. (2) Shardulbhai v. State of Gujprat. (3) Abdul Wahid v. State of Maharastra. (4) Han Om v. State of U. P. . Reference was also made to a decision of Supreme Court in: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, as to the duty of the Magistrate before making order of further remand to judicial custody to point out to the under trial prisoner that he is entitled to be released on bail under proviso to Section 167 (2) (a) Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court decision relied on by Shri Gupta in Aslam s case (supra} is on different points. The decision deals with the question whether the accused once released on bail under, the proviso to Section 167 (2) (a) can be taken back in custody merely on filing of charge-sheet and when there are no special reasons for doing so, though the charge-sheet reveals commission of non-bailable offence. This decision would not support the applicants. ( 6 ) AS the accused-applicants were represented by a counsel before the court below, failure of the Magistrate on expiry of 90 days to inform them of their right to be released on bail under the proviso as stipulated in Hussainaras (supra) has not caused them any prejudice, would not help them. The Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Shardulbhais case (supra) inter alia holds that the accused does not have right to be released on bail under proviso (a) to sub-Section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C. once the investigation comes to an end by filing charge-sheet. Patna High Court in Nawal Sahani s case (supra) inter alia holds that where prayer for bail is to be considered after submission of charge-sheet, the question of granting bail under proviso (a) to Sub sec. (4) of Section 167 does not arise. Bombay High Court in Abdul Wahid s Case (supra) holds that right accrued to the accused under the proviso can be exercised only before charge-sheet is filed. Once charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrates power can be exercised only under section 437 Cr. (4) of Section 167 does not arise. Bombay High Court in Abdul Wahid s Case (supra) holds that right accrued to the accused under the proviso can be exercised only before charge-sheet is filed. Once charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrates power can be exercised only under section 437 Cr. P. C. The Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Han Om's case (supra) holds that the accused had no right to claim release on bail even after filing of charge-sheet on sole ground that charge-sheet was filed after prescribed period. In doing so, it relied on Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Shardulabhais case (supra ). ( 7 ) THERE appear no good reasons to depart from the decisions of the different High Courts referred to above. ( 8 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present application for bail is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed. .