JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application for bail by Kunanaram S/o Likhmaram. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that accused-petitioner Kunanaram committed rape with Smt. Rami on 20-7-93 at about 5 P.M. in the field of one Pitharam Jat in village Khaliya. It appears that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 25-7-93. Police failed to file a charge-sheet or challan within 90 days of the arrest of the accused-petitioner. An application for bail was moved before the learned Magistrate, who remanded the accused-petitioner to custody. The learned Magistrate rejected the application for bail. The police eventually filed challan on 3-11 -93. The accused-petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh This application for bail was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 5-1-94. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that once a proper challan had been filed, the accused-petitioner could not be enlarged on bail on the ground that there was delay in filing the challan. Aggrieved, accused-petitioner has come to this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has argued the case on merits as well as on the aforesaid technical ground. A large number of rulings have been cited before me on both the sides. 4. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, there is prima facie evidence to show that accused-petitioner Kunanaram committed rape with Smt. Rami as alleged. At this stage, it would not be proper for me to discuss the prosecution evidence disclosed by the case diary in details. 5. So far as the aforesaid technical ground is concerned, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner urged that once there has been delay in filing a challan, an indefeasible right accrued to the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. I need not discuss the various rulings cited before me because find that in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 74/90 - Nawab Khan v. The State of Raj. I need not discuss the various rulings cited before me because find that in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 74/90 - Nawab Khan v. The State of Raj. decided on 25-2-91 , a learned single Judge of this Court has made a reference to the Larger Bench the following question : "Whether the accused who has not made an application for his release on bail, after expiry of period prescribed by proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr PC and before filing of the charge-sheet or before taking the cognizance has a right to claim to be released on bail after' filing of the charge-sheet solely on the ground that the charge-sheet was not submitted within the prescribed period." I wholly associate myself with the view expressed by the learned single Judge making the reference. He has cited all the rulings and discussed all the rulings which were cited before me and need not encumber this order by citing all those rulings and discussing them over again, because wholly associate myself with the views expressed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid order that once a proper charge-sheet or challan has been filed, the right which accrued to the accused to be released on bail prior to the filing of the challan, is lost and does not survive after challan is filed. 6. This matter may be listed before the Large Bench which has been constituted in pursuance of the order referred to above.Application allowed. *******