JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has moved this application for bail under section 439 r/w Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.7.1997 passed in criminal Misc. case No. 204/97 relating to FIR No. 40/97 of P.S. Bhensrodgarh Distt. Chittorgarh. The accused is alleged to have committed an offence u /s. 302 IPC. The case was registered against him under the above FIR on 5.4.1997.The investigation commenced and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata on 26.6.1997. At that time the Court was lying vacant as no Presiding Officer was posted. According to the order of the High Court Order No. Estt. (RJS)/101/97 dated 7.7.1997 Shri Ravindra Kumar Maheshwari was posted as CJ(JD)-JM, Rawatbhata, Pratapgarh under the above order. 2. It is not dispute that the case was registered by the above Court on 17.7.1997. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cognizance can only be said to have taken on 17.7.1997 when the case was registered and the learned Presiding Officer passed the effective order. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on Narain & Co. v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 RCC 315 . In this case the challan was filed on 30.6.1981 before the learned C.J.M., Kota. The C.J.M., Kota recorded the fact of filing the charge-sheet and ordered that challan be sent to the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi for orders on 6.7.1981. The Judicial Magistrate, therefore, could not be said to have taken cognizance of the offences upon police report on 30.6.1981. On 6.7.1981, the Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi, to whom the charge-sheet was sent by Judicial Magistrate, Kota, did not take cognizance and adjourned the case for orders on 13.7.1981. It was only on 13.7.1981 that he passed an order that the challan be registered and thereafter, as stated earlier, he committed the petitioners to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota. It was held that after the expiry of 90 days an absolute right accrued to the accused to be released on bail, subject, of course to the cancellation of bail, if the requirement of Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. were satisfied. In the instant case also following the above ruling, the cognizance was taken after the expiry of 90 days. Hence the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 4. In the instant case also following the above ruling, the cognizance was taken after the expiry of 90 days. Hence the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 4. I, therefore, order that the accused-petitioner Roop Chand S/o Nathu Kanjar may be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) together with one surety of Rs. 10,000 /- to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata or to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh if the case has been committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh.Bail application allowed. *******