JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - Can the Court curtail personal liberty of a prisoner when statute permits him to be freed from custody ? This is the moot question that falls for consideration in the present Misc. Case. 2. The petitioner and two others are accused in S. T. Case No. 214 of 1995 pending before the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The offence alleged against them is one u/s 20(b) of the NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. All these three accused persons were arrested and forwarded to custody on 14-9-1995. On completion of 60 days period of detention which expired on 22-11-1995 all the accused persons applied for their release on 23-11-1995 urging that they have acquired a statutory right to be freed from custody. The learned Special Court dealing with the case accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the accused persons but while allowing the prayer of the accused persons, rejected the petitioner's prayer on the ground that his bail application was not moved. 3. The position of law is no longer res Integra that Section 167(2), Cr PC applies to a case under the NDPS Act. (See Union of India v. Thamisharusi and Ors.: (1995) 9 OCR 1(SC) . We may trace the history as to why the Legislature fixed a time-limit for release of the accused persons on bail if the investigation is not completed within a period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be. It is fundamental that a person arrested for committing an offence shall not unnecessarily be detained by the police. Section 56, Cr PC provides that a police officer making arrest without-warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions contained in the Code as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station. Section 57 mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a period exceeding twenty-four hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. Next we may refer to Section 167. Section 57 mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a period exceeding twenty-four hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. Next we may refer to Section 167. As provided therein the Magistrate to whom an accused is forwarded by the police officer shall detain him in custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole and after expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for further detention, in that case he can detain him in custody for a total period not exceeding ninety days if the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and sixty days in case of other offences. This maximum period of detention has been brought into the statute book by way of amendment keeping in mind the reports of the Law Commission and Select Committee. In this context, it would be useful to refer what Select Committee remarked : "There is a persistent complaint that investigations are not being completed quickly by the police and that in many cases the accused persons are kept in detention on remand, for a very long period causing hardship and misery to such under-trial prisoners and their families. Although stringent provisions are already there in the existing Code requiring investigations to be completed quickly, they have not had the desired effect. A drastic remedy, therefore, is called for in this behalf." 4. We may now turn to Section 173(1), Cr PC which provides that the investigation under Chapter XII shall be completed without unnecessary delay. But for various reasons the investigating agencies are not able to comply with the said statutory direction and complete the investigation within reasonable time. In such a situation, onerous duty is cast upon the Court to scrupulously follow the mandate of law as provided in Section 167(2), Cr PC and release the accused detained in custody beyond the prescribed period. It should be remembered that personal liberty is a precious right which cannot be curtailed by overlooking the said statutory provision. 5. In such a situation, onerous duty is cast upon the Court to scrupulously follow the mandate of law as provided in Section 167(2), Cr PC and release the accused detained in custody beyond the prescribed period. It should be remembered that personal liberty is a precious right which cannot be curtailed by overlooking the said statutory provision. 5. In the case in hand the petitioner though did not move the bail application, it was obligatory for the Court below to extend the statutory benefit, since as a matter of right he was entitled to be released on bail. It need be mentioned that while exercising power u/s 167, Cr PC the Court is not required to delve into the merit of the prosecution case and scrutinise the available evidence collected during investigation. So when the application was made by the petitioner informing the Court that by efflux of time he has acquired a right to be released on bail, the Court had no other option but to extend the benefit and admit him to bail notwithstanding whether any-body did turn up to move the application or not. As it appears, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the petitioner's application in a casual manner and by stroke of pen rejected his prayer. 6. In view of my discussions made above, I am inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer and release him on bail. Accordingly it is ordered that he be released on his furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below before whom the case is pending for adjudication. 7. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.