G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This is an application for bail by the accused Sheo Nath alias Chhotaka on the technical ground that even though after expiry of 90 days, charge-sheet had not been filed by the prosecution, still he was remanded to custody. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable stretch and gone through the record. I find there is sufficient force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and this application deserves to be allowed. 3. Case Crime No. 68 of 1992, under Section 18/20, N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat is pending against the ;. . ccused. He was arrested on 10-3-1992 and produced before the learned Magistrate/special Judge on 11-3-1992, 8-6-1992 was the last date for remand. The charge-sheet was submitted on 9-6-1992 i. e. after expiry of 90 days. On 9-6-1992, the applicant moved the court that since mandatory provisions of Section 167 (2) have been violated, no further remand was permissible, and the accused should be let off. The learned Sessions Judge instead of deciding the application on the same day, for some reasons or the other, adjourned the case and ultimately he rejected it on 24-6-1992. In making the calculation, he found that the charge-sheet had been filed within 90 days. But in fact, it was not so. It was on the 91st day. The reasoning is clear. In March, there were 21 days (including the day of remand dated 11-2-1992 ). In April, there were 30 days. In May, there were 31st days and upto 8th June, there were 8 days in June, making a total of 90 days. Therefore, admittedly, the charge-sheet was submitted on 9-6-1992 i. e. on the 91st day, after the remand. It seems that had this calculation been correct, the learned Sessions Judge would have himself also granted bail to the applicant. 4. May attention has been invited to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 JIC 14 (SC) ; AIR 1993 SC 1 . Latest law has been laid down after considering the earlier observations of their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court and other courts. The legislative history of Section 167, Cr. P. C. , has also been concern ed at page 5 in paragraph 6. 5. Latest law has been laid down after considering the earlier observations of their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court and other courts. The legislative history of Section 167, Cr. P. C. , has also been concern ed at page 5 in paragraph 6. 5. Earlier the bail application of the applicant had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 1-6- 1992, being bail application No. 397 of 92. It means that the applicant was prepared to furnish the bail before the expiry of 90 days as required under Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of the Cr. P. C. Once he expressed his willingness to furnish bail, he was not expected to display his readiness and willingness at every stage and on every date. So the argument of the learned Special State Counsel that the petitioner expressed his willing ness for being bailed out on 9-6-1992 only is without substance. 6. While interpreting the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 167, Cr. P. C. , the Honble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the intent was clear loud and vocal that the investigation must be completed within 60/90 days. The provision is mandatory that the accused shall be released. It means no discretion is left with the Magistrate/special Judge to refuse bail, once this mandatory provision has been flouted by the investi gating agency. If the investigating agency fails to file charge- sheet before the expiry of 60/90 days, as the case may be, the accused in custody should be released on bail vide observations in paragraph 9 at page 9. At page 10, in paragraph 11, the following observations are very material: "the purpose and object of providing for the release of the accused under sub-section (2) of Section 167 on the failure of the investi gating agency completing the investigation within the extended time allowed by the proviso was to instil a sense of urgency in the investigating agency to complete the investigation promptly and within the statutory time-frame. " 7. At page 11, paragraph 13, the following observations were made : "when the Legislature made in obligatory that the accused shall be released on bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the outer limit provided by proviso (a), it manifested concern for individual liberty, notwithstanding the gravity 01 the allegation against the accused. " 7. At page 11, paragraph 13, the following observations were made : "when the Legislature made in obligatory that the accused shall be released on bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the outer limit provided by proviso (a), it manifested concern for individual liberty, notwithstanding the gravity 01 the allegation against the accused. It would not be permissible to interfere with the legisla tive mandate on imaginary apprehensions, e. g. , an obliging investigation officer deliberately not filing the charge-sheet in time, as such misconduct can be dealt with departmentally. " 8. in paragraph 14, the following observations were made at page 11 : "the provisions of the Code, in particular Sections 57 and 167, manifest the legislative anxiety that once a persons liberty has been inter-ferred with the police arresting him without a Courts order or a warrant, the investigation must be carried out with utmost urgency and completed within the maximum period allowed by the proviso (a) to Section 167 (2) of the Code. It must be realised that the said proviso was introduced in the Code by way of enlargement of time for which the arrested accused could be kept in custody. Therefore, the prosecuting agency must realise that if it fails to show a sense of urgency in the investigation of the case and omits or defaults to file a charge-sheet within the time prescribed, the accused would be entitled to be released on bail and the order passed to that effect under Section 167 (2) would be an order under Section 437 (1) or 439 (1) of the Code. " 9. Thus the latest legal position is that once the mandatory provisions of Section 167 (ii), Cr. P. C. is violated, enlarging the accused on bail is a must and the court will be acting against the spirit of law in refusing bail under such circumstances. 10. Similar view was taken by this Court in Sudhakar alias Chunna v. State of U. P. 1984 ACC page 106. The tendency to adjourn hearing of the bail application raising the plea of Section 167 (2) of the Cr. P. C. was rightly decried. 11. 10. Similar view was taken by this Court in Sudhakar alias Chunna v. State of U. P. 1984 ACC page 106. The tendency to adjourn hearing of the bail application raising the plea of Section 167 (2) of the Cr. P. C. was rightly decried. 11. In SMvanna v. State, 1992 Cr LJ 2287 ; 1992 (2) Kan LJ, page 11, it was held that the period of 90 days commences from the date on which the accused is remanded and not from the date of arrest. It was further observed by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court that even if a public holidy falls on the 90th day that too would not be excluded from counting. Thus the law has been interpreted correctly by the Karnataka High Court in view of the pro nouncement of the Honble Supreme Court referred to above. 12. It is really unfortunate that such a serious case was taken very lightly by the investigating agency. This Court would have otherwise been loath to grant this application on merits but it is constrained to observe that due to negligence on the part o/the investigating agency, the charge-sheet was filed on the 91st day. It may be an intentional act on the part of the investi gating agency also. But that is a matter to be investigated by the higher authorities of the police department. So far as this Court is concerned, it is sufficient to express its displeasure at the negligent working of the investigating agency in this case. 13. The application is allowed. The accused shall be released after furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the concerned C. J. M. /special Judge/sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 68 of 1992, under Section 18/20, N. D. P. S. , P. S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. While fixing the bail amount, the learned court shall take into consideration that the allegation is that about 44 Kg. of Chatas has been allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is by itself a serious offence requiring a stringent notice. Application allowed. .