ORDER Shacheendra Dwivedi. J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 as also under Section 167 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short the "Code"). 2. The petitioner is in custody in Crime No. 131/92 registered for the offences under Sections 420. 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. 3. The praver for bail is made on the merits of the case as also under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 4. It is contended with regard to the second ground that the petitioner was arrested on 20-7-1992 and the challan was filed against him by the police on 19-10-92. Although it was also contended that the copies of the challan were not supplied to the petitioner by the prosecution on filing the challan but later during arguments that ground was given up. 5. The main stress lay on the ground of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code and it was submitted that the petitioner having been arrested on 20-7-92, the challan was filed beyond 90 days and as such, the petitioner-accused was entitled to the benefit of the proviso and could not be kept into custody. 6. The cumputation of the period of custody has to be counted not from the date of arrest but from the date of the order of the remand. The petitioner was remanded on 21-7-92 but even on comupting the period of custody from 21-7-92, the 90th day fell on 18th October 1992 which was the 91st day. It is contended by the State that since 18th October 1992 was a Sunday, the challan was filed in Court only on 19th October 92 and, therefore, the accused-petitioner can not claim the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 7. This Court in Ashok Sharma v. State of M. P. 1993 JLJ 99 has taken the view that the challan need not be filed in the Court and it could be filed before the Magistrate and that the prosecution can not claim the benefit of 90th day being a holidy. Filing of challan on 19th October 1992 is, therefore, beyond the period of 90 days and the accused is entitled to the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 8. Filing of challan on 19th October 1992 is, therefore, beyond the period of 90 days and the accused is entitled to the benefit of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 8. The next question then arises whether the Court can look into the merits of the case while considering the release of the accused on bail under the provision of Section 167 (2) of the Code when the challan is before the Court and the Court is considering the issue of release of the accused On bail (Sic).